#^ 


I&t 


»^^ 


«1^T*« 


PRINCETON,  N.  J. 


Division 
Section 


"    2./  .0 

&^, 

-opyl 

The  International 

Critical  Commentary 

On  the  Holy  Scriptures  of  the  Old  and 
New  Testaments 


EDITORS'    PREFACE 


THERE  are  now  before  the  public  many  Commentaries, 
written  by  British  and  American  divines,  of  a  popular 
or  homiletical  character.  The  Caitibridge  Bible  for 
Schools^  the  Hafidbooks  for  Bible  Classes  and  Private  Students ^ 
The  Speaker's  Conmientary ,  The  Popular  Commentary  (Schaff), 
The  Expositor's  Bible y  and  other  similar  series,  have  their 
special  place  and  importance.  But  they  do  not  enter  into  the 
field  of  Critical  BibHcal  scholarship  occupied  by  such  series  of 
Commentaries  as  the  Kurzgefasstes  exegetisches  Handbuch  zum 
A.  T.  ;  De  Wette's  Kurzgefasstes  exegetisches  Handbuch  zum 
N.  T. ;  Meyer's  Kritisch-exegetischer  Kommentar ;  Keil  and 
Delitzsch's  Biblischer  Co??imentar  ilber  das  A.  T;  Lange's 
Theologisch-homiletisches  Bibelwerk ;  Nowack's  Handkommentar 
zum  A.  T.  ;  Holtzmann's  Handkommentar  zum  JV.  T  Several 
of  these  have  been  translated,  edited,  and  in  some  cases  enlarged 
and  adapted,  for  the  English-speaking  public  ;  others  are  in 
process  of  translation.  But  no  corresponding  series  by  British 
or  American  divines  has  hitherto  been  produced.  The  way  has 
been  prepared  by  special  Commentaries  by  Cheyne,  Ellicott, 
Kalisch,  Lightfoot,  Perowne,  Westcott,  and  others;  and  the 
time  has  come,  in  the  judgment  of  the  projectors  of  this  enter- 
prise, when  it  is  practicable  to  combine  British  and  American 
scholars  in  the  production  of  a  critical,  comprehensive 
Commentary  that  will  be  abreast  of  modern  biblical  scholarship, 
and  in  a  measure  lead  its  van. 


The   International  Critical  Commentary 

Messrs.  Charles  Scribner's  Sons  of  New  York,  and  Messrs. 
T.  &  T.  Clark  of  Edinburgh,  propose  to  publish  such  a  series 
of  Commentaries  on  the  Old  and  New  Testaments,  under  the 
editorship  of  Prof.  C.  A.  Briggs,  D.D.,  D.Litt.,  in  America,  and 
of  Prof.  S.  R.  Driver,  D.D.,  D.Litt.,  for  the  Old  Testament,  and 
the  Rev.  Alfred  Plummer,  D.D.,  for  the  New  Testament,  in 
Great  Britain. 

The  Commentaries  will  be  international  and  inter-confessional, 
and  will  be  free  from  polemical  and  ecclesiastical  bias.  They 
will  be  based  upon  a  thorough  critical  study  of  the  original  texts 
of  the  Bible,  and  upon  critical  methods  of  interpretation.  They 
are  designed  chiefly  for  students  and  clergymen,  and  will  be 
written  in  a  compact  style.  Each  book  will  be  preceded  by  an 
Introduction,  stating  the  results  of  criticism  upon  it,  and  discuss- 
ing impartially  the  questions  still  remaining  open.  The  details 
of  criticism  will  appear  in  their  proper  place  in  the  body  of  the 
Commentary.  Each  section  of  the  Text  will  be  introduced 
with  a  paraphrase,  or  summary  of  contents.  Technical  details 
of  textual  and  philological  criticism  will,  as  a  rule,  be  kept 
distinct  from  matter  of  a  more  general  character ;  and  in  the 
Old  Testament  the  exegetical  notes  will  be  arranged,  as  far  as 
possible,  so  as  to  be  serviceable  to  students  not  acquainted  with 
Hebrew.  The  History  of  Interpretation  of  the  Books  will  be 
dealt  with,  when  necessary,  in  the  Introductions,  with  critical 
notices  of  the  most  important  literature  of  the  subject.  Historical 
and  Archaeological  questions,  as  well  as  questions  of  Biblical 
Theology,  are  included  in  the  plan  of  the  Commentaries,  but 
not  Practical  or  Homiletical  Exegesis.  The  Volumes  will  con- 
stitute a  uniform  series. 


The  International  Critical  Commentary 

ARRANGEMENT  OF  VOLUMES  AND  AUTHORS 

THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

GENESIS.  The  Rev.  John  Skinner,  D.D.,  Professor  of  Old  Testament 
Language  and  Literature,  College  of  Presbyterian  Church  of  England, 
Cambridge,  England. 

EXODUS.  The  Rev.  A.  R.  S.  Kennedy,  D.D.,  Professor  of  Hebrew, 
University  of  Edinburgh. 

LEVITICUS.    J,  F.  Stenning,  M.A.,  Fellow  of  Wadham  College,  Oxford. 

NUMBERS.  The  Rev,  G.  Buchanan  Gray,  D.D.,  Professor  of  Hebrew, 
Mansfield  College,  Oxford.  \_Now  Ready. 

DEUTERONOMY.  The  Rev.  S.  R.  Driver,  D.D.,  D.Litt.,  Regius  Pro- 
fessor of  Hebrew,  Oxford.  [Now  Ready. 

JOSHUA.  The  Rev.  George  Adam  Smith,  D.D.,  LL.D.,  Professor  of 
Hebrew,  United  Free  Church  College,  Glasgow. 

JUDGES.  The  Rev.  George  Moore,  D.D.,  LL.D.,  Professor  of  Theol- 
ogy, Harvard  University,  Cambridge,  Mass.  [Now  Ready. 

SAMUEL.  The  Rev.  H.  P.  Smith,  D.D.,  Professor  of  Old  Testament 
Literature  and  History  of  Religion,  Meadville,  Pa.  [No 7v  Ready. 

KINGS.  The  Rev.  Francis  Brown,  D.D.,  D.Litt.,  LL.D.,  Professor 
of  Hebrew  and  Cognate  Languages,  Union  Theological  Seminary,  New 
York  City. 

CHRONICLES.  The  Rev.  Edward  L.  Curtis,  D.D.,  Professor  of 
Hebrew,  Yale  University,  New  Haven,  Conn. 

EZRA  AND  NEHEMIAH.  The  Rev.  L.W.  Batten,  Ph.D.,  D.D.,  Rector 
of  St.  Mark's  Church,  New  York  City,  sometime  Professor  of  Hebrew, 
P.  E.  Divinity  School,  Philadelphia. 

PSALMS.  The  Rev.  Chas.  A.  Briggs,  D.D.,  D.Litt.,  Graduate  Pro- 
fessor of  Theological  Encyclopaedia  and  Symbolics,  Union  Theological 
Seminary,   New  York.  [2  vols.     Now  Ready 

PROVERBS.  The  Rev.  C.  H.  Toy,  D.D.,  LL.D.,  Professor  of  Hebrew, 
Harvard  University,  Cambridge,  Mass.  [Noru  Ready. 

JOB.  The  Rev.  S.  R.  Driver,  D.D.,  D.Litt.,  Regius  Professor  of  He- 
brew, Oxford. 


The   International  Critical  Commentary 


ISAIAH.  Chaps.  I-XXXIX.  The  Rev.  G.  Buchanan  Gray,  D.D., 
Professor  of  Hebrew,  Mansfield  College,  Oxford. 

ISAIAH.  Chaps.  XL-LXVI.  The  Rev.  S.  R.  Driver,  D.D.,  D.Litt., 
Regius  Professor  of  Hebrew,  Oxford. 

JEREMIAH.  The  Rev.  A.  F.  Kirkpatrick,  D.D.,  Dean  of  Ely,  sometime 
Regius  Professor  of  Hebrew,  Cambridge,  England. 

EZEKIEL.  The  Rev.  G.  A.  CooKE,  M.A.,  sometime  Fellow  Magdalen 
College,  and  the  Rev.  Charles  F.  Burney,  D.Litt.,  Fellow  and  Lecturer 
in  Hebrew,  St.  John's  College,  Oxford. 

DANIEL.  The  Rev.  John  P.  Peters,  Ph.D.,  D.D.,  sometime  Professor 
of  Hebrew,  P.  E.  Divinity  School,  Philadelphia,  now  Rector  of  St. 
Michael's  Church,  New  York  City. 

AMOS  AND  HOSEA.  W.  R.  HARPER,  Ph.D.,  LL.D.,  sometime  Presi- 
dent of  the  University  of  Chicago,  Illinois.  [JVcna  Ready. 

MICAH  TO  HAGGAI.  Prof.  JOHN  P.  SMITH,  University  of  Chicago; 
Prof.  Charles  P.  Fagnani,  D.D.,  Union  Theological  Seminary,  New 
York;  W.  Hayes  Ward,  D.D.,  LL.D.,  Editor  of  The  Independent,  New 
York;  Prof.  Julius  A.  Bewer.  Union  Theological  Seminary,  New  York, 
and  Prof.  H.  G.  Mitchell,  D.D.,  Boston  University. 

ZECHARIAH  TO  JONAH.  Prof.  H.  G.  Mitchell,  D.D.,  Prof.  John 
P.  Smith  and  Prof.  J.  A.  Bewer. 

ESTHER.  The  Rev.  L.  B.  Baton,  Ph.D.,  Professor  of  Hebrew,  Hart- 
ford  Theological  Seminary.  [/«  Press. 

ECCLESIASTES.  Prof.  George  A.  Barton,  Ph.D.,  Professor  of  Bibli- 
cal Literature,  Bryn  Mawr  College,  Pa.  \_Ncnv  Ready. 

RUTH,  SONG  OF  SONGS  AND  LAMENTATIONS.  Rev.  CHARLES  A. 
Briggs,  D.D.,  D.Litt.,  Professor  of  Theological  Encyclopaedia  and  Sym- 
bolics, Union  Theological  Seminary,  New  York. 


.THE   NEW   TESTAMENT 

ST.  MATTHEW.    The  Rev.  WiLLOUGHBY  C.  Allen,  M.A.,   Fellow  and 
Lecturer  in  Theology  and  Hebrew,  Exeter  College,  Oxford.       {Now  Ready. 

ST.  MARK.    Rev.  E.  P.  Gould,  D.D.,  sometime  Professor  of  New  Testa- 
ment Literature,   P.  E.  Divinity  School,   Philadelphia.  \_Now  Ready. 

ST.  LUKE.    The    Rev.    Alfred    Plummer,   D.D.,    sometime  Master  of 
University  College,  Durham.  {Now  Ready. 


The   International  Critical  Commentary 

ST.  JOHN.  The  Very  Rev.  John  Henry  Bernard,  D.D.,  Dean  of  St. 
Patrick's  and  Lecturer  in  Divinity,  University  of  Dublin. 

HARMONY  OF  THE  GOSPELS.  The  Rev.  William  Sanday,  D.D., 
LL.D.,  Lady  Margaret  Professor  of  Divinity,  Oxford,  ana  the  Rev.  WiL- 
LOUGHBY  C.  Allen,  M.A.,  Fellow  and  Lecturer  in  Divinity  and  Hebrew, 
Exeter  College,  Oxford. 

ACTS.  The  Rev.  C.  H.  Turner,  D.D.,  Fellow  of  Magdalen  College, 
Oxford,  and  the  Rev.  H.  N.  Bate,  M.A.,  Examining  Chaplain  to  the 
Bishop  of  London. 

ROMANS.  The  Rev.  William  Sanday,  D.D.,  LL.D.,  Lady  Margaret 
Professor  of  Divinity  and  Canon  of  Christ  Church,  Oxford,  and  the  Rev. 
A.  C.  Headlam,  M.A.,  D.D.,  Principal  of  King's  College,  London. 

[_A^oza  Ready. 

CORINTHIANS.  The  Right  Rev.  Arch.  Robertson,  D.D.,  LL.D.,  Lord 
Bishop  of  Exeter,  and  Dawson  Walker,  D.D.,  Theological  Tutor  in  the 
University  of  Durham. 

GALATIANS.  The  Rev.  Ernest  D.  Burton,  D.D.,  Professor  of  New 
Testament  Literature,  University  of  Chicago. 

EPHESIANS  AND  COLOSSIANS.  The  Rev.  T.  K.  Abbott,  B.D., 
D.Litt.,  sometime  Professor  of  Biblical  Greek,  Trinity  College,  Dublin,  now 
Librarian  of  the  same.  \N(nv  Ready. 

PHILIPPIANS  AND  PHSLEMON.  The  Rev.  Marvin  R.  Vincent, 
D.  D.,  Professor  of  Biblical  Literature,  Union  Theological  Seminary,  New 
York  City.  \A^ow  Ready. 

THESSALONIANS.  The  Rev.  James  E.  Frame,  M.A.,  Professor  of 
Biblical  Theology,  Union  Theological  Seminary,  New  York. 

THE  PASTORAL  EPISTLES.  The  Rev.  Walter  LocK,  D.D.,  Warden 
of  Keble  College  and  Professor  of  Exegesis,  Oxford. 

HEBREWS.  The  Rev.  A.  Nairne,  M.A.,  Professor  of  Hebrew  in  King's 
College,  London, 

ST.  JAMES.  The  Rev.  James  H.  Ropes,  D.D.,  Bussey  Professor  of  New 
Testament  Criticism  in  Harvard  University. 

PETER  AND  JUDE.  The  Rev.  Charles  Bigg,  D.D.,  Regius  Professor 
of  Ecclesiastical  History  and  Canon  of  Christ  Church,  Oxford.   {Now  Ready. 

THE  EPISTLES  OF  ST.  JOHN.  The  Rev.  E.  A.  Brooke,  B.D.,  Fellow 
and  Divinity  Lecturer  in  King's  College,  Cambridge. 

REVELATION.  The  Rev.  Robert  H.  Charles,  M.A.,  D.D.,  Professor 
of  Biblical  Greek  in  the  University  of  Dublin. 


THE   BOOK   OF   ECCLESIASTES 


The  International  Critical  Commentary 


CRITICAL  AND   EXEGETICAL 
COMMENTARY 


ON 


THE  BOOK  OE  ECCLESIASTES 


BY 
V 

GEORGE  AARON  BARTON,  Ph.D. 

PROFESSOR    OF    BIBLICAL   LITERATURE   AND    SEMITIC    LANGUAGES 
BRYN    MAWR    COLLEGE 


NEW  YORK 
CHARLES    SCRIBNER'S   SONS 

iqo8 


Copyright,  1908,  by 
CHARLES  SCRIBNER'S  SONS 


Published  May,  1908 


€'0 

MY   BROTHER 

JOSHUA   LINDLEY   BARTON,    M.D. 

WHOSE   GENEROUS    ENCOURAGEMENT 
AND   SELF-SACRIFICE   OPENED   TO   ME 

A  student's  career 

this    volume    is    affectionately 

dedicated 


PREFACE 

THE  following  pages  are  a  plain  commentary  on  the  Book 
of  Ecclesiastes.  Those  who  expect  to  find  here  the 
advocacy  of  new  and  startling  theories  of  this  fascinat- 
ingly perplexing  book  will  be  disappointed.  In  the  judgment 
of  the  writer  there  has  been  something  too  much  of  these 
things  in  the  recent  literature  on  Qoheleth.  An  endeavor  is 
made  in  the  following  pages  to  examine  the  important  theories 
concerning  the  book,  both  ancient  and  modern,  in  an  impartial 
spirit,  and  to  go  in  the  formation  of  judgments,  whither  the 
evidence  points.  Obviously,  in  treating  a  work  which  has 
been  studied  so  many  centuries,  there  is  little  opportunity  for 
novel  discovery.  Occasionally  the  writer  has  found  himself 
differing  from  all  his  predecessors,  but  much  more  often  the 
evidence  has  pointed  to  a  conclusion  already  anticipated  by 
some  previous  worker.  He  cannot  hope  that  his  conclusions 
will  commend  themselves  to  all  his  colleagues,  but  if  this  com- 
mentary shall  have  a  part,  however  humble,  in  recalling  criti- 
cism to  regions  in  which  the  evidence  is  sufficiently  objective 
to  give  some  ultimate  promise  of  a  consensus  of  judgment  on 
the  part  of  scholars  concerning  the  problems  involved,  the 
labor  expended  upon  it  will  be  more  than  rewarded. 

In  conclusion,  I  desire  to  express  my  thanks  to  Dr.  Hans  H. 
Spoer,  of  Jerusalem,  for  placing  at  my  disposal  his  collation 
of  some  MSS.  of  the  Greek  Version  of  Ecclesiastes  in  the 
Library  of  the  Church  of  the  Holy  Sepulcher;  to  Professor 
Paul  Haupt,  for  permitting  me,  in  spite  of  my  disbelief  in  his 
metrical    theory,  to    use,  while    reading   my    proofs,    advance 


vi  PREFACE 

sheets  of  his  Hebrew  Textof  Ecclesiastes;  to  the  Editor,  Professor 
Charles  A.  Briggs,  for  his  helpful  criticisms  and  many  kind- 
nesses while  the  book  has  been  passing  through  the  press;  and 
to  my  wife,  for  her  valuable  aid  in  reading  the  proofs. 

GEORGE  A.  BARTON. 


Bryn  Mawr,  Ta., 
April  2nd,  1908. 


I 


CONTENTS 

PAGE 

ABBREVIATIONS ix 

NAME  OF  THE  BOOK i 

PLACE  IN  THE  HEBREW  BIBLE i 

CANONICITY 2 

TEXT 7 

1.  Hebrew  Text 7 

2.  The  Septuagint  Version 8 

3.  The  Greek  Version  of  Aquila 11 

4.  The  Version  of  Theodotian 11 

5.  The  Version  of  Symmachus 12 

6.  The  Coptic  Version 13 

7.  The  Syriac  Peshitta 13 

8.  The  Syro-hexaplar  Version 14 

9.  Old  Latin  Version 14 

10.  The  Latin  Vulgate       15 

11.  The  Arabic  Version 15 

12.  The  Targum 15 

13.  Quotations  in  the  Talmud 16 

14.  Recensions  of  the  Text 17 

HISTORY  OF  THE  INTERPRETATION 18 

THE  RELATION  OF  "QOHELETH"  TO  GREEK  THOUGHT  32 

1.  Supposed  Linguistic  Influence 32 

2.  Relation  to  Greek  Thought 34 

vii 


viii  CONTENTS 

PAGE 

THE  INTEGRITY  OF  ECCLESIASTES 43 

QOHELETH'S  THOUGHT  IN  OUTLINE 46 

WAS  QOHELETH  WRITTEN  IN  METRICAL  FORM?      .     .  50 

LINGUISTIC  CHARACTERISTICS  OF  QOHELETH      ...  52 

THE  RELATION  OF  ECCLESIASTES  TO  BEN  SIRA  ...  53 

THE   ATTITUDE    OF    THE    BOOK    OF   WISDOM   TO 

ECCLESIASTES 57 

DATE  AND  AUTHORSHIP 58 

COMMENTARY 67 

INDEXES 205 


ABBREVIATIONS. 


I.    TEXTS  AND  VERSIONS. 


A  =  The  Arabic  Version. 

»A  =  Version  of  Aquila. 

Aid.  =  Aldine  text  of  05. 

AV.  =  Authorized  Version. 

BD.      =  Baer  &  DeHtzsch,  Heb.  text, 

Chr.     =  The  Chronicler,  author  of 
Ch.  Ezr.  Ne. 

D.  =  The  Deuteronomist  in  Dt., 

in  other  books  Deuter- 
onomic  author  of  Re- 
dactor. 

E.  =  Ephraemitic  sources  of  Hex- 

ateuch. 
EV^      =  English  Versions. 

d  =  Greek  Septuagint  Version, 

Vatican  text  of  Swete. 

(gA  =  The  Alexandrine  text. 

(g«  =  The  Vatican  text. 

(gc  =  Codex  Ephraemi. 

(g«  =  The  Sinaitic  text. 

(gv  =  Codex  Venetus. 

1^  =  Hebrew  consonantal  text. 

H.        =  Code   of   Holiness   of   the 

Hexateuch. 
Elex.     =  The  Hexateuch. 

J.         =  Judaic  sources  of  the  Hexa- 
teuch. 
J.C.      =  Jerome,  Commentary. 


2C         =  The  Coptic  Version. 
Kt.       =  K^thib,  the  Hebrew  text  as 
written. 

S  =  Old  Latin  Version. 

Mas.    =  Massora. 

MT.     =  TheMassoreticpointedtext. 

=  The  New  Testament. 

=  The  Old  Testament. 


NT. 
OT. 
P. 

Qr. 

R. 

RV. 

RV.-^ 


S 
0^ 


Vrss. 
WL. 

e 


=  The  priestly  sources  of  the 
Hexateuch. 

=  Q^re,  the  Hebrew  text  as 
read. 

=  The  Redactor,  or  editor. 
=  The  Revised  Version. 
=  The  margin  of  the  Revised 
Version. 

=  The   Syriac   Peshitto  Ver- 
sion. 
=  Syriac-Hexaplar  Version. 
=  The  Version  of  Symmachus. 

=  The  Targum  or  Aramaic 
Version. 

=  The  Vulgate  Version. 
=  Versions,  usually  ancient. 

=  The  Wisdom  Literature  of 

the  OT. 
=  The  Version  of  Theodotian. 


ABBREVIATIONS 


II.     BOOKS  OF  THE  OLD  AND  NEW  TESTAMENTS. 


Am. 

=  Amos. 

Jon. 

=  Jonah. 

Bar. 

=  Baruch 

Jos. 

=  Joshua. 

BS. 

=  Ecclesiasticus  of  Ben  Sira. 

Ju. 

=  Judges. 

i,2Ch 

.  =  I,  2  Chronicles. 

I,   2K. 

=  I,  2  Kings. 

Col. 

=  Colossians. 

La. 

=  Lamentations. 

I,  2Cor.=  I,  2  Corinthians. 

Lk. 

=  Luke. 

Ct. 

=  Canticles  =  The  Song  of 

Lv. 

=  Leviticus. 

Songs. 

Mai. 

=  Malachi. 

Dn. 

=  Daniel. 

i,2Mac.==  I,  2  Maccabees. 

Dt. 

=  Deuteronomy. 

Mi. 

=  Micah. 

Mk. 

=  Mark. 

Ec. 

=  Ecclesiastes.  . 

Mt. 

=  Matthew. 

Est. 

=  Esther. 

Eph. 

=  Ephesians. 

Na. 

=  Nahum. 

Ex. 

=  Exodus. 

Ne. 

=  Nehemiah. 

Ez. 

=  Ezekiel. 

Nu. 

=  Numbers. 

Ezr. 

=  Ezra. 

Ob. 

=  Obadiah. 

Gn. 

=  Genesis. 

Phil. 

=  Philippians. 

Gal. 

=  Galatians. 

Pr. 

=  Proverbs. 

Ps. 

=  Psalms. 

Hb. 

=  Habakkuk. 

Heb. 

=  Hebrews. 

Q. 

=  Qoheleth  or  Ecclesiastes. 

Hg. 

=  Haggai. 

Qoh. 

=  Qoheleth  or  Ecclesiastes. 

Ho. 

=  Hosea. 

Rev. 

=  Revelation. 

Is. 

=  early  parts  of  Isaiah. 

Rom. 

=  Romans. 

Is.2 

=  exilic  parts  of  Isaiah. 

Ru. 

=  Ruth. 

IS.3 

=  post-exilic  parts  of  Isaiah. 

I,    2S. 

=  I,  2  Samuel. 

Jb. 

=  Job. 

I,  2  Thes.    =  I,  2  Thessalonians. 

Je. 

=  Jeremiah. 

I,  2  Tim.     =  I,  2  Timothy. 

Jn. 

=  John. 

Zc. 

=  Zechariah. 

Jo. 

=  Joel. 

Zp. 

=  Zephaniah. 

III.     AUTHORS 

AND  WRITERS. 

AE. 

=  Aben  Ezra. 

Briggs.      The  editor 

Aug. 

=  Augustine. 

specially  referred  to 
is     designated     by 

BDB. 

=  Hebrew    and    English 

BDB.      F.    Brown, 

Lexicon  of  the  OT., 

BDB.  S.  R.  Driver, 

edited  by  F.  Brown, 

BDB.  C.  A.  Briggs. 

S.  R.  Driver,  C.  A. 

Bar  Heb.     =  Bar  Hebraeus. 

ABBREVIATIONS 


Be. 

=  G.  Beer. 

Ew. 

=  H.  Ewald. 

Bick. 

=  G.  Bickell,  Das  Buck 

Ew.5 

=  his    Lehrb.    der    Heb. 

Kohelet. 

Sprache. 

Bo. 

=  F.  Bottcher. 

Br. 

=  C.  A.  Briggs. 

Fu. 

=  J.  Fiirst. 

Br.^iA 

=  Messiah  of  the  Apos- 

tles. 

Gen. 

=  Genung,  Words  of  Ko- 

Br.MG 

=  Messiah   of   the  Gos- 

heleth. 

pels. 

Ges. 

=  Gesenius,  Thesaurus. 

Br.MP 

==  Messianic  Prophecy. 

Ges.Bu- 

=  Gesenius,  Worterbuch, 

Br.sHs 

=  Study  of  Holy  Script- 

13th ed. 

ure. 

Ges.K- 

=  his    Heb.    Gram.,  ed. 

Br.HEx. 

=  Higher     Criticism     of 

Kautzsch. 

the  Hexateuch. 

Ges.L 

=  his  Lehrgeb'dude. 

Calv. 
Che. 
ChWB. 

=  John  Calvin. 

=  T.  K.  Cheyne. 

=  Levy,   Chald.   Worter- 

Gins. 

Gr. 

Grot. 

=  Ginsburg,  Coheleth. 
=  Gratz,  Kohelet. 
=  Grotius. 

Co. 

huch. 
=  C.  H.  Cornill. 

H. 

=  W.  R.  Harper,  Hebrew 
Syntax. 

=  P.  Haupt,  Koheleth 
and  Ecclesiastes. 

=  Heiligstedt,  Ecclesias- 
tes. 

CT. 

=  Cuneiform  Texts  from 
Babylonian    Tablets 
in  the  British  Mu- 
seum. 

Ha. 
Heil. 

Da. 

=  Davidson,    Hebrew 

Heng. 

=  Hengstenberg. 

Syntax. 

Hit. 

=  F.  Hitzig,  Ecclesiastes. 

Dat. 

=  Dathe,  Ecclesiastes. 

Houb. 

=  C.  F.  Houbigant. 

DB. 
Del. 

=  Hastings'     Dictionary 

of  the  Bible. 
=  Franz    Delitzsch,  Das 

Buch  Koheleth. 

Ja. 

=  Jastrow,  Diet,   of  the 
Targ.,    Talm.     and 
Midrashic  Lit. 

Dod. 

=  Doderlein,  Ecclesiastes 

JBL. 

=  Journal  of  Biblical  Lit- 

Dr. 

=  S.  R.  Driver,  Ecclesi- 

erature. 

astes  in  Kittel's 

JE. 

=  Jewish  Encyclopaedia. 

Biblia  Hebraica. 

Jer. 

=  Jerome. 

Dr.§ 

=  Heb.  Tenses. 

JoS.Ant. 

=  Fl.    Josephus,    Antiq- 

Dr.intr. 

=  Introduction  to  Litera- 

uities. 

ture  of  OT. 

Jos.BJ. 

—  Fl.  Josephus,  Wars  of 
the  Jews. 

EB. 

=  Encyclopaedia  Biblica. 

JQR. 

=  Jewish  Quarterly  Re- 

Elst. 

=  Elster. 

view. 

Eph.  Syr. 

=  Ephraem  Syrus. 

Eur. 

=  Euringer,  Masorahtext 

Kam. 

=  A.  S.  Kamenetzky. 

des  Koheleth. 

Kau. 

=  E.  Kautzsch. 

ABBREVIATIONS 


PL 


Ra.  = 

Re.  = 


E.  H.  Plumtrc,  Eccle- 
siastes. 

R  a  w  1  i  n  s  o  n's  Cunei- 
form Inscriptions  of 
Western  ^5/0,  IV.  R. 
=  Vol.  IV.  of  it. 

Rashi. 

E.  Renan,  UEccle- 
siaste. 

Riehm's  Handworter- 
buch. 


Kenn. 

=  Bcnj.  Kennicott,  Vetus 

R6. 

=  E.  Rodiger 

Testamentum  He- 

Rob. 

=  E.  Robinson,  Biblical 

hraicum   cum  variis 

Researches. 

lectionibus. 

Ros. 

=  Rosenmiiller. 

Ki. 

=  Daniel  Kimchi  (Qam- 
chi). 

RS. 

=  W.  Robertson  Smith. 

Kn. 

=  A.    W.    Knobel,    Das 

Sieg. 

=  D.  C.  Siegfried,  Predi- 

Buck  Qoheleth. 

ger  und  Hoheslied. 

K6. 

=  F.  E.  Konig,     Lehrge- 

Siev. 

=  E.  Sievers. 

b'dude    der    Heh. 

Sm. 

=  R.  Smend. 

Sprache. 

SS. 

=  Siegfried   and   Stade's 

Kue. 

=  A.  Kuenen. 

Heb.  Worterbuch. 

Sta. 

=  B.  Stade. 

Lag. 

=  P.  de  Lagarde. 

Lag.^^v 

=  his   Bildung  der   No- 

0 

mina. 

Talm. 

=  The  Talmud. 

Luz. 

=  S.  D.  Luzzato. 

Tisch. 

=  C.  Tischendorf. 

Tr. 

=  Tristram,     Natural 

Marsh. 

=  Marshall,  Ecclesiastes. 

History  of  the  Bible. 

M. 

=  Miiller's  Hebrew  Syn- 

Ty. 

=  T.  Tyler,  Ecclesiastes. 

tax. 

MA. 

=  W.  Muss- Arnold,  As- 

Van  d.  P. 

=  van  der  Palm. 

syr.  Dictionary. 

VI. 

=  W.  Vlock. 

McN. 

=  A.    H.    McNeile,    In- 
irod.  to  Ecclesiastes. 

Vaih. 

=  J.  C.  Vaihinger. 

Mich. 

=  J.  D.  Michaelis. 

Wang. 

=  Dr.  Wangemann. 

Mish. 

=  The  Mishna. 

We. 

=  J.  Wellhausen. 

Wild. 

=  Wildeboer. 

NHWB. 

=  Levy,  Neuhebr.  Wdr- 

Wr. 

=  C.  H.  H.  Wright,  Ec- 

terbuch. 

clesiastes. 

No. 

=  W.Nowack,Pr.5o/om. 

Zap.  =  V.  Zapletal,  Metrik  d. 

Kohelet. 
Zo.  =  O.    Zockler,    Prediger 

in    Lange's    Bibel- 

werk. 

ZAW.  =  Zeitschrift    f.     alttest. 

Wissenschaft. 
ZMG.  =  Z.  d.  deutsch.  Morgen- 

laud.  Gesellschaft. 
ZPV.  =  Z.    d.    deutsch.    Pal. 

Vereins. 


ABBREVIATIONS 


IV.     GENERAL,  ESPECIALLY  GRAMMATICAL. 


abr.  =  abbreviation. 

abs.  =  absolute. 

abstr.  =  abstract. 

ace.  =  accusative. 

ace.  cog.  =  cognate  ace. 

ace.  pers.  =  ace.  of  person. 

ace.  rei  =  ace.  of  thing. 

ace.  to  =  according  to. 

act.  =  active. 

adj.  =  adjective. 

adv.  =  adverb. 

a.X.  =  ttTTal    \ey6fxevov,    word 

or  phr.  used  once, 

al.  =  et  aliter,  and  elsw. 

alw.  =  always, 

antith.  =  antithesis,  antithetical, 

apod.  =  apodosis. 

Ar.  =  Arabic. 

Aram.  =  Aramaic, 

art.  =  article. 

As.  =  Assyrian. 

Bab.  =  Babylonian. 

B.  Aram.  =  Biblical  Aramaic. 


c. 

=  circa,  about;  also  cum, 

with. 

eaus. 

=  causative. 

cod.,  codd 

=  codex,  codices. 

cf. 

=  confer,  compare. 

cog. 

=  cognate. 

coll. 

=  collective. 

comm. 

=  commentaries. 

comp. 

=  compare. 

concr. 

=  concrete. 

conj. 

=  conjunction. 

consee. 

=  consecutive. 

contr. 

=  contract,  contracted. 

cstr. 

=  construct. 

d.f. 

=  daghesh  forte. 

def. 

=  defective. 

del. 

=  dele,  strike  out. 

dittog. 

=  dittography. 

dub. 

=  dubious,  doubtful. 

elsw.  =  elsewhere. 

esp.  =  especially. 

emph.  =  emphasis,  emphatic. 

Eth.  =  Ethiopic. 

exe.  =  except. 

exil.  =  exilic. 

f.  =  feminine. 

fig.  =  figurative. 

fpl.  =  feminine  plural. 

fr.  =  from. 

freq.  =  frequentative. 

fs.  =  feminine  singular. 

gent.  =  gentilic. 

gl.  =  gloss,  glossator. 

gen.  =  genitive. 

haplog.  =  haplography. 

Heb.  =  Hebrew. 

Hiph.  =  Hiphil  of  verb. 

Hithp.  =  Hithpael  of  verb. 

impf.  =  imperfect. 

imv.  =  imperative. 

indef.  =  indefinite. 

inf.  =  infinitive. 

i.p.  =  in  pause. 

i.q.  =  id  quod,  the  same  with. 

intrans.  =  intransitive. 

J.Ar.  =  Jewish  Aramaic, 

juss.  ^  jussive. 

lit.  =  literal,  literally, 

loc.  =  local,  locality. 

m.  =  masculine. 

Mand.  =  Mandaean. 

metaph.  =  metaphor,   metaphori- 
cal, 

mng.  =  meaning, 

mpl.  =  masculine  plural, 

ms.  =  masculine  singular. 


ABBREVIATIONS 


n. 

=  noun. 

qu.     • 

=  question. 

n.  p. 

=  proper  name. 

q.v. 

=  quod  vide. 

n.  pr.  loc. 

=  proper  noun  of 

place. 

rd. 

=  read. 

n.  unit. 

=  noun  of  unity. 

Nab. 

=  Nabathean. 

refl. 

=  reflexive. 

NH. 

=  New  Hebrew. 

rel. 

=  relative. 

Niph. 

=  Niphal  of  verb 

Sab. 
sf. 

=  Sabaean. 
=  suffix. 

obj. 
opp. 

=  object. 

=  opposite,  as  opposed  to 
or  contrasted  with. 

sg. 
si  vera 

=  singular. 
=  si  vera  lectio. 

sim. 

=  simile. 

P- 

=  person. 

sq. 

=  followed  by. 

parall. 

=  parallel  with. 

St. 

=  status,  state,  stative. 

part. 

=  particle. 

str. 

=  strophe. 

pass. 

=  passive. 

subj. 

=  subject. 

pf. 

=  perfect. 

subst. 

=  substantive. 

Ph. 

=  Phoenician. 

s.v. 

=  sub  voce. 

phr. 

=  phrase. 

syn. 

=  synonymous. 

Pi. 

=  Piel  of  verb. 

synth. 

=  synthetic. 

pi. 

=  plural. 

Syr. 

=  Syriac. 

post-B. 

=  post-Biblical. 

- 

t. 

=  times  (following  a  num 

postex. 

=  postexilic. 

ber). 
=  transfer. 

pred. 

=  predicate. 

tr. 

preex. 

=  preexilic. 

trans. 

=  transitive. 

preg. 

=  pregnant. 

txt. 

=  text. 

prep. 

=  preposition. 

txt.  err. 

=  textual  error. 

prob. 

=  probable. 

pron. 

=  pronoun. 

V. 

=  vide,  see. 

ptc. 

=  participle. 

vb. 

=  verb. 

Pu. 

=  Pual  of  verb. 

vs. 

=  verse. 

V. 

OTHE 

.R  SIGNS 

II     parallel,  of  words  or  clauses  chiefly 

synonymous. 
=  equivalent,  equals, 
+  plus  denotes  that  other  passages 

might  be  cited. 
[  ]   indicates  that  the  form  enclosed 

is  not  in  the  Hebrew,  so  far  as 

known. 


■[/  =  the  root,  or  stem. 

=  sign  of  abbreviation  in  Hebrew 

words. 
'""  =  Yahweh. 
(  )  =  Indicates  that  Massoretic  text 

has  not  been  followed,   but 

either    Vrss.    or    conjectural 

emendations. 


INTRODUCTION. 

§  I.      NAME. 

The  name  Ecclesiastes  (Latin,  Ecclesiastes,  Greek  'EKKXeaiaa-- 
T^9)  is  apparently  a  translation  of  the  unique  Hebrew  word, 
Qoheleth.  The  meaning  of  this  word  is  uncertain,  but  it  probably 
signifies  "one  who  addresses  an  assembly,"  or  ''an  official  speaker 
in  an  assembly,"  (see  critical  note  on  ch.  i^,  where  the  various 
meanings  which  have  been  supposed  to  attach  to  the  term  are 
reviewed). 

§2.      PLACE   IN   THE   HEBREW   BIBLE. 

In  the  Hebrew  Bible  Ecclesiastes  stands  in  the  third  division 
of  the  canon  among  the  KHuhini,  or  Hagiography,  where  it  now. 
follows  Lamentations  and  precedes  Esther.  It  forms  one  of  the 
so-called  Megilloth,  or  "Rolls,"  the  only  parts  of  the  Hagiography 
which  were  pubhcly  read  at  the  Jewish  festivals.  At  what  period 
Ecclesiastes  was  admitted  to  its  present  position  is  uncertain. 
In  the  Hst  of  books  given  in  Baba  Batra,  13,  14,  the  Megilloth 
are  not  even  grouped  together.  Qoheleth  is  included,  and  it  im- 
mediately follows  Proverbs  and  precedes  Canticles,  as  in  our  Eng- 
Hsh  Bibles.  In  the  Talmudic  treatise  Soferim,  which  reached  its 
final  redaction  about  the  middle  of  the  eighth  century,  Ruth, 
Canticles,  Lamentations  and  Esther  are  mentioned  twice  (14^-  «), 
but  Ecclesiastes  is  omitted  from  both  passages.  (JE.,  XI,  p.  427'' 
and  W.  R.  Smith,  OT.  in  JC,  2d  ed.,  p.  i73n.)  In  the  Afahzor, 
edited  by  Samuel  of  Vitry  at  the  beginning  of  the  twelfth  century, 
it  is  said  that  at  the  feast  of  tabernacles  the  congregation,  seated, 
read  the  "book"  Ecclesiastes.  It  is  not  here  called  a  "roll"  and 
was,  perhaps,   not    then  included  in  the  Megilloth.     (Cf.   JE., 


2  ECCLESIASTES 

VIII,  429.)  In  the  extant  MSS.  of  the  Bible  the  Megilloth  are 
usually  grouped  together,  though  the  order  varies,  especially  in 
Spanish  MSS.     (C/.  the  table  in  Ryle's  Canon,  281^.) 

Soon  after  the  twelfth  century,  apparently,  the  present  order 
(Ruth,  Lamentations,  Ecclesiastes)  was  established  in  French  and 
German  MSS.,  and  has  been  maintained  ever  since.  Before  the 
first  printed  editions  of  the  Hebrew  Bible  were  made,  Ecclesiastes 
had,  at  all  events,  taken  its  present  position  as  one  of  the  five 
Megilloth.  This  is  true  of  the  first  printed  Hagiography,  1486- 
1487,  as  well  as  Bomberg's  great  Biblia  Rahhinica  of  1517,  which 
contained  three  Targums  and  a  Rabbinic  commentary. 

§3.      CANONICITY. 

Ecclesiastes  is  not  mentioned  in  any  canonical  writing  of  the 
Old  Testament.  Evidence  has,  however,  come  to  light  in  recent 
years  which  proves  quite  conclusively  that  it  was  known  in  an 
edited  form  to  the  author  of  Ecclesiasticus,  or  the  Wisdom  of 
Jesus  Son  of  Sirach,  who  wrote  about  180-175  B.C.  This  evi- 
dence is  given  in  detail  below  Jh  §11;  but  Noldeke's  article  in 
ZAW.,  XX,  90  ff.,  and  McNeile's  Introduction  to  Ecclesiastes, 
S4  ff-,  may  also  be  compared.  There  is  no  reason  to  suppose, 
however,  that  Ecclesiastes  had  been  canonized  at  the  time  of  Ben 
Sira;  on  the  contrary,  the  very  opposite  would  seem  to  be  the  fact, 
for  Ecclesiastes  was  also  known  to  a  later  extra-canonical  writer,  the 
author  of  the  Wisdom  of  Solomon,  who  probably  wrote  in  the  first 
century  B.C.  The  author  of  this  last-mentioned  book,  in  his 
second  chapter,  sets  himself  to  correct  the  sinful  utterances  of 
certain  ungodly  men,  and  there  can  be  no  question  but  that  in 
verses  1-9  he  includes  among  the  sayings  of  the  ungodly  a  number 
of  the  utterances  of  Qoheleth  (for  details,  see  below,  §12).  Whether 
Qoheleth  was  known  to  the  autl;ior  of  Wisdom  in  the  Hebrew  or  in 
a  Greek  translation  is  unknown;  and  the  fact,  if  known,  would 
have  no  bearing  on  the  question  of  canonicity,  for  uncanonical 
books  were  often  translated.  (See,  however, below,  §4,  (2)  and  (3). 
The  tone  of  the  attack  upon  Qoheleth,  which  is  made  in  Wisdom, 
indicates  that  to  him  the  book  was  not  yet  Scripture.     The  ear- 


CANONICITY  3 

nestness  of  the  attack  makes  rather  the  impression  that  the  book 
was  a  candidate  for  canonical  regard — that  it  was  so  esteemed  in 
some  quarters — and  that  the  writer  wished  to  open  the  eyes  of  his 
readers  to  the  true  character  of  its  sentiments. 

A  Talmudic  story,  to  which  McNeile  calls  attention,  Talm. 
Jerusalem,  Berakoth,  iib  (vii,  2),  would,  if  any  weight  can  be 
attached  to  it,  indicate  that  in  the  first  century  B.C.  canonical 
authority  was  by  some  assigned  to  the  book.  The  story  is  con- 
cerning an  incident  in  the  reign  of  Alexander  Jannaeus  (104-79 
B.C.).  It  says,  "The  king  (Jannaeus)  said  to  him  (Simon  ben 
Shetach,  the  king's  brother-in-law),  'Why  didst  thou  mock  me  by 
saying  that  nine  hundred  sacrifices  were  required,  when  half 
would  have  been  sufl&cient  ? '  Simon  answered,  '  I  mocked  thee 
not;  thou  hast  paid  thy  share  and  I  mine  ...  as  it  is  written. 
For  the  protection  of  wisdom  is  as  the  protection  of  money,'" 
thus  making  a  literal  quotation  from  Eccl.  712. 

Another  Talmudic  story  quoted  by  Wright  (Baba  Batra,  4a) 
relates  to  the  time  of  Herod.  That  monarch,  having  put  to  death 
members  of  the  Sanhedrin  and  deprived  Baba  ben  Buta  of  his 
sight,  visited  the  latter  in  disguise  and  endeavored  to  betray  him 
into  some  unguarded  expression  with  reference  to  Herod's  own 
tyranny.  Ben  Buta  steadily  refused  to  utter  an  incautious  word, 
and  in  his  replies  he  quotes  from  all  three  parts  of  the  Biblical 
canon — from  the  Pentateuch,  Ex.  22^7,  from  the  Prophets,  Isa.  2  2, 
and  from  the  KHiihim,  Pr.  623,  and  in  three  different  parts  Eccl. 
lo^o — introducing  each  quotation  with  the  formula  for  quoting 
canonical  Scripture.  The  passage  from  Qoheleth  which  is  thus 
quoted  is: 

Do  not  even  in  thy  thought  curse  the  king, 
Nor  in  thy  bedchamber  curse  a  rich  man ; 
For  the  bird  of  heaven  shall  carry  the  voice, 
And  the  owner  of  wings  shall  tell  a  thing. 

Wright  (p.  21  ff.)  also  gives  in  full  another  Talmudic  story, 
to  which  Bloch  had  called  attention — a  story  relating  to  the  great 
Rabbi  GamaHel  I  {c.  44  A.D.).  According  to  this  tale  (Sab- 
bath, 30b),  Gamaliel  had  a  dispute  with  a  briUiant  pupil,  whom 
Bloch  believed  to  be  the  Apostle  Paul,  and  in  the  course  of  the 


4  ECCLESIASTES 

dispute,  the  pupil  quoted  as  Scripture  twice  Eccl.  i':  "There  is 
nothing  new  under  the  sun." 

If  these  Talmudic  tales  came  from  a  contemporary  source,  they 
would  prove  that  Ecclesiastes  had  been  admitted  into  the  canon 
by  the  first  century  B.C.  In  fact,  all  that  the  passages  prove  is 
that  the  Rabbis  o;  the  Talmudic  period — the  third  to  the  fifth 
centuries  A.D. — had  traditions  which  they  apparently  believed 
to  be  authentic  that  Qoheleth  had  been  recognized  as  Scripture 
at  the  dates  mentioned. 

The  New  Testament  affords  us  no  help  in  tracing  the  canonicity 
of  Ecclesiastes.  There  is  in  the  NT.  no  quotation  from  Eccle- 
siastes. When,  however,  the  character  of  the  book  is  taken  into 
account,  it  is  not  strange  that  no  reference  is  made  to  it.  This 
silence  cannot  fairly  be  made  an  argument  against  the  canonicity 
of  our  book.     (See  Br.^^^,  pp.  131-132.) 

McNeile,  however,  goes  farther  than  the  evidence  will  warrant 
when  he  argues  {op.  cU.,  p.  6  ff.)  from  the  New  Testament  use 
of  the  word  Scripture  (97  <ypa(f)rj,  al  fypa^ai),  that  the  canon  was 
definitely  so  closed  to  the  writers  of  the  New  Testament  that 
another  book  could  not  find  its  way  into  it.  As  is  well  known  the 
three  divisions  of  the  canon  are  mentioned  in  the  prologue  to  the 
Greek  Ecclesiasticus,  proving  that  they  existed  when  that  work 
was  translated,  c.  130  B.C.,  and  are  also  referred  to  in  the  Gospel 
of  Luke  (ch.  24^^).  There  is  absolutely  nothing,  however,  to 
show  us  exactly  what  the  New  Testament  writers  had  in  the  third 
division  of  their  canon.  It  is  quite  possible,  as  McNeile  claims, 
that  97  ypa^rj  meant  to  them  a  definite  body  of  writings,  but  that 
that  body  was  so  fixed  that  no  additions  could  be  made  to  it,  is  an 
unproved  assumption,  and  the  "impression  that  'Scripture'  meant 
to  the  Apostolic  writers  the  same  body  of  Old  Testament  writings 
that  it  means  to  us,"  if  it  is  to  be  understood  that  their  canon  could 
not  have  differed  from  ours  by  even  one  book,  rests  on  no  ade- 
quate evidence  whatever.     (See  Br.*^"^,  pp.  124^.,  131.) 

Some  scholars  find  quotations  from  Ecclesiastes  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment. Thus  Plumtre  thinks  that  Paul  may  have  had  Qoheleth  in  mind 
when  he  wrote  "The  creation  was  subjected  to  vanity"  (Rom.  8^°);  and 
that  the  Epistle  of  James  alludes  to  it:    "For  ye  are  a  vapor  which  ap- 


CANONICITY  5 

peareth  for  a  little  time  and  then  vanisheth  away"  (ch.  4").  Such  par- 
allels are,  however,  too  vague  to  be  convincing.  Neither  writer  may 
have  been  thinking  of  Qoheleth  at  all.  Haupt  believes  that  Jesus  alludes 
to  Ecclesiastes  with  the  purpose  of  combating  its  sentiments  in  the  par- 
able of  the  rich  man  who  pulled  down  his  barns  to  build  greater, 
Lk.  12'^-^^  He  sees  in  Lk.  12*^  an  allusion  to  Eccl.  2*  and  in  i2^ob^  to 
Eccl.  2' 8''.  Again,  the  allusions  are  too  vague  to  be  convincing.  The 
view  of  J.  Rendel  Harris,  that  the  parable  is  an  elaboration  of  BS.  5'^, 
is  much  more  probable.  Haupt  also  holds  that  Lk.  i2-^=Matt.  6^^, 
(Solomon  in  all  his  glory)  is  "above  all"  an  allusion  to  Ecclesiastes,  but 
again  one  must  say  that  the  likeness  is  not  convincing.  It  is  quite  as  prob- 
able that  the  account  of  Solomon  in  i  Kings  was  in  the  mind  of  Jesus. 

Philo,  like  the  New  Testament,  makes  no  reference  to  Qoheleth, 
but,  as  in  the  case  of  the  New  Testament,  no  argument  is  to  be 
drawn  from  this  silence,  as  he  makes  no  reference  to  a  number  of 
other  books — Ezekiel,  Daniel,  Canticles,  Ruth  and  Lamentations. 

The  suggestion  made  above,  that  Qoheleth  was  in  some  quarters 
regarded  as  canonical,  but  was  not  universally  received,  receives 
confirmation  from  one  or  two  famous  passages  in  the  Mishna, 
which  reached  its  final  form  about  200  A.D.  In  the  terminology 
of  the  Mishna  the  way  of  calling  a  book  canonical  is  to  say  that  it 
"defiles  the  hands."  In  the  Tract  Yadaim,  35,  we  read:  "All  the 
Holy  Scriptures  defile  the  hands.  The  Song  of  Songs  and  Qohe- 
leth defile  the  hands.  Rabbi  Judah  says,  'The  Song  of  Songs 
defiles  the  hands,  but  Koheleth  is  disputed.'  Rabbi  Jose  says, 
^Qoheleth  does  not  defile  the  hands,  and  the  Song  of  Songs  is 
disputed.'  Rabbi  Simeon  says,  'Qoheleth  belongs  to  the  light 
things  of  the  school  of  Shammai,  but  to  the  weighty  things  of  the 
school  of  Hillel.'  Rabbi  Simeon  ben  Azzai  says,  'I  received  from 
the  mouth  of  the  seventy-two  elders  on  the  day  when  they  placed 
Rabbi  EHezer  ben  Azariah  in  the  president's  chair,  that  the  Song 
of  Songs  and  Qoheleth  defile  the  hands.'  Rabbi  Aqiba  said,  'Far 
be  it  and  peace!  No  man  of  Israel  has  ever  doubted  concerning 
the  Song  of  Songs  that  it  defiled  the  hands,  for  there  is  not  a  day 
in  all  the  world  like  the  day  on  which  the  Song  of  Songs  was  given 
to  Israel,  because  all  the  KHiihim  are  holy,  but  the  Song  of  Songs 
is  most  holy.  And  if  they  had  doubts,  they  only  doubted  con- 
cerning Qoheleth.'     Rabbi  Johanan,  son   of  Joshua,  son  of  the 


6  ECCLESIASTES 

father-in-law  of  Rabbi  Aqiba  says,  '  so  they  differed  and  so  they 
concluded.'" 

Again,  Eduyoth,  ^\  says:  "Qoheleth  does  not  defile  the  hands 
according  to  the  school  of  Shammai,  but  according  to  the  school 
of  Hillel  it  does  defile  the  hands."  These  passages  are  echoed  in 
the  Talmud  and  in  later  Jewish  writings.  Now  it  seems  very  clear 
from  these  statements  that  down  to  the  end  of  the  first  century 
A.D.  Ecclesiastes  was  among  the  "  Antilegomena "  of  the  Old 
Testament  canon.  Ryle  is  quite  right  in  saying  {Canon,  174), 
that  it  would  be  difficult  after  the  first  century  B.C.,  when  the 
antipathy  between  the  Pharisees  and  Sadducees  became  so 
marked  and  their  contentions  so  virulent,  for  a  new  book  to  be 
introduced  into  the  canon.  It  seems  clear  that,  if  Qoheleth  had 
not  begun  to  gain  a  foothold  before  that  in  some  influential  quarter, 
its  chances  of  canonicity  would  have  been  slight,  but  it  seems 
equally  clear  that  it  was  not  universally  accepted  as  a  part  of  Script- 
ure until  after  the  great  council  of  Jabne  (Jamnia),  at  the  end  of 
the  first  century  A.D.     (See  Br.^"^  p.  130.) 

The  book  probably  won  its  way  at  last,  because  as  these  pas- 
sages show  it  had  a  part  of  the  Pharisaical  influence  in  its  favor. 
It  was  not  a  question  of  Pharisee  against  Sadducee.  The  Sad- 
ducees would  find  no  fault  with  the  book.  The  line  of  cleav- 
age was  between  the  schools  of  Shammai  and  Hillel,  and  ulti- 
mately, probably  because  the  work  passed  under  the  great  name 
of  Solomon,  the  school  of  Hillel  won  and  Ecclesiastes  became  a 
part  of  the  Scriptures. 

The  view  arrived  at  above  agrees  substantially  with  that  of  W.  R. 
Smith,  OT.  in  J.C,  2d  ed.,  185/.  Wildeboer,  Origin  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment Canon,  147  #;  and  McNeile,  Ecclesiastes.  For  attempts  to  explain 
away  this  evidence,  see  Ginsburg,  Coheleth,  isff. 

The  Statement  of  Josephus  {Contra  Apion,  i")  that  the  Jewish 
canon  contained  22  books  might  be  significant,  if  we  knew  how 
the  22  books  were  reckoned.  The  same  is  true  of  the  statement 
in  2  (4)  Esdras  14^5.  46^  which,  according  to  the  Oriental  versions, 
makes  the  Jewish  canon  consist  of  24  books.  In  neither  case 
do  we  know  how  the  number  was  made  up.     Different  scholars 


TEXT  7 

have  their  theories,  but,  as  positive  evidence,  both  passages  are  too 
indefinite  either  to  confirm  or  to  refute  the  conclusion  we  have 
reached.  (See  Br.^"-^,  p.  127  /.)  The  canonicity  of  Qoheleth 
was  soon  accepted  by  Christians  as  well  as  Jews,  for  Hermas, 
Mand.,  VII,  quotes  Eccl.  12'^  and  Justin  Martyr,  in  his  dialogue 
with  Trypho,  ch.  6,  seems  to  recall  Qoheleth  12^  Clement  of 
Alex,  quotes  by  name,  in  Stromata,  i^\  Eccl.  I'^-'s  713;  Tertullian 
quotes  Eccl.  y  three  times,  (Adv.  Marc.  5%  De  Monog.  3,  De 
Virg.  Vel.  3);  while  Origen  has  several  quotations  from  it. 

§  4.      TEXT, 
(l).      HEBREW  TEXT. 

The  text  of  the  book  of  Ecclesiastes  was  written  in  a  late  form 
of  the  Hebrew  language — a  form  which  evinces  considerable 
decay  from  the  earlier  tongue,  and  a  considerable  approach  to  the 
language  of  the  Mishna.  Aramaic  must  have  been  largely  em- 
ployed by  the  Jews  of  the  period,  for  there  are  many  Aramaisms 
both  of  vocabulary  and  construction  in  Ecclesiastes.  (See  be- 
low, §10.) 

We  do  not  know  whether  Ecclesiastes  was  written  in  the  older  He- 
brew character,  in  the  square  Aramaic  character,  or  in  a  modified  form 
intermediate  between  the  two.  The  last  is  probably  the  fact,  for  we 
know  from  many  documents  that  the  older  characters  of  the  Moabite 
Stone  had  undergone  much  modification.  It  is  possible  that  the  square 
character  had  come  in  at  the  time  Ecclesiastes  was  written.  The  old- 
est inscription  in  the  square  character  is  that  of  Arak-el-Amir,  which 
dates  from  about  180  B.C.  (C/.  Lidzbarski  in  JE.,  I,  443.)  This 
was  probably  slightly  later  than  the  date  of  our  book  (see  below  $13). 
It  is  possible,  therefore,  that  the  square  character  may  have  been  em- 
ployed by  the  author  of  Ecclesiastes,  but  it  may  have  been  a  form 
intermediate  between  the  old  Hebrew  and  the  square  character,  such  as 
is  found  in  the  Jewish  papyri  recently  discovered  in  Egypt.  (See  Sayce 
and  Cowley's  Aramaic  Papyri  Discovered  at  Assuan,  London,  1906.) 
As  these  papyri  are  some  two  hundred  years  older  than  Ecclesiastes, 
the  alphabet  used  by  the  Jews  had  probably  during  the  period  under- 
gone considerable  development  towards  the  square  form.  (See 
Br.sHS^  pp.  172-3.) 

A  manuscript  of  the  Pentateuch  exists  in  St.  Petersburg  which 


8  ECCLESIASTES 

some  Jewish  scholars  think  was  written  before  604  A.D.,  but  so 
far  as  I  know  no  manuscript  is  known  that  contains  Qoheleth 
which  is  older  than  the  eleventh  century.  These  MSS.,  of  course, 
contain  the  text  of  the  Massorets  only.  They  do,  however,  ex- 
hibit some  variations. 

The  Massorets  consulted  a  number  of  MSS.  which  are  known  by  name, 
but  which  have  long  ago  disappeared,  such  as  Codex  Muggeh,  Codex 
Hilleli,  Codex  Sanbuki,  Codex  Jerusalami,  Codex  Jericho,  Codex 
Sinai,  Codex  Great  Mahzor,  Codex  Ezra,  and  Codex  Babylon.  (For 
description,  see  Broyde  in  JE.,  Ill,  473^.,  esp.  Br.^HS^  pp.  183-4.) 

Many  of  these  MSS.  exist  in  the  various  libraries  of  Europe, 
and  have  been  studied  and  employed  by  scholars.  Benjamin 
Kennicott,  in  his  Vetus  Testamentum  Hehraicum  cum  variis  lec- 
tionibiis,  Oxford,  17 76-1 780,  noted  the  variants  as  they  appear  in 
several  hundred  MSS.  His  text  of  the  Megilloth  rests  on  the 
collations  of  350  of  these.  Among  the  texts  of  Ecclesiastes, 
edited  in  recent  years,  those  of  Baer,  Ginsburg  and  Driver  (the 
last  in  Kittel's  Biblia  Hehraica)  rest  on  a  collation  of  vary- 
ing numbers  of  MSS.  Driver's  text  is  the  fruit  of  a  collation  of 
a  considerable  number  of  these,  and  the  kind  of  variation  which 
they  exhibit  is  well  illustrated  in  his  notes. 

(2).      THE   SEPTUAGINT   VERSION. 

Most  important  for  the  history  of  the  text  of  Ecclesiastes  is  the 
Greek  version,  which,  because  of  the  legend  that  it  was  trans- 
lated by  seventy-two  men,  is  commonly  called  the  Septuagint. 
This  version  is  in  the  following  pages  designated  by  (5. 

The  Greek  translation  of  the  Old  Testament  was  not  all  made 
at  one  time,  or  by  one  hand.  The  Pentateuch  was  apparently 
translated  in  the  third  century  B.C.,  and  the  other  parts  at  various 
later  dates.  The  KHiihim  were  naturally  translated  last  of  all. 
It  is  probable  that  the  Psalter  existed  in  Greek  as  early  as  130  B.C., 
but  there  is  reason  to  think  that  the  version  of  Ecclesiastes  now 
found  in  <$  was  not  made  till  the  end  of  the  first  century  A.D., 
and  that  it  was  made  by  Aquila,  a  native  of  Pontus,  who  was  a 
convert  first  to  Christianity  and  then  to  Judaism,  and  who  is  said 


TEXT  9 

by  Jerome  to  have  been  a  pupil  of  Aqiba.  The  reasons  for  this 
view  are  that  the  version  of  Qoheleth  in  (|  exhibits  many  of  the 
most  marked  pecuharities  of  the  style  of  Aquila's  version  as  pre- 
served by  Origen  in  his  famous  Hexapla — peculiarities  which 
occur  to  the  same  extent  in  the  Septuagint  version  of  no  other 
Old  Testament  book.  This  view  was  set  forth  by  Graetz  {Ge- 
schkhted.  Jiiden,  IV,  437,  and  Kohelet,  173-179).  It  was  opposed 
by  DiHmann  in  a  characteristically  thorough  paper  in  the  Sitzungs- 
herichte  d.  kg.  preus.  Akad.  d:  Wiss.  zu  Berlin,  1892,  I,  3-16;  but 
Dillman  has  been  ably  and  successfully  answered  by  McNeile  in 
his  Introduction  to  Ecdesiastes,  11 5-134.     (See  Br.*^^^,  p.  192.) 

Some  of  the  Aquilan  marks  of  style  which  appear  in  the  Ecdesiastes 
of  (&  are  as  follows:  the  rendering  of  pn,  the  sign  of  the  ace,  by  cr6v; 
DJ  and  DJ1  by  /cat  ye;  <^,  with  an  infinitive,  by  tov  with  an  infinitive, 
even  where  it  forms  simply  the  complement  of  a  verbal  expression  as 
in  i^  8^^  4"  io'5  312  517  gio  jj7^  g|.(,^  ^g  jj^  Aquila  (cf.  Burkitt's 
Aquila,  13),  where  the  Hebrew  noun  is  preceded  by  S,  and  it  would  be 
inappropriate  to  render  it  by  eis;  it  is  rendered  by  the  article,  e.g.  2^® 
TOV  <ro(pov  =  23.0/,  2^  Tw  dp0pu)Tr(p=  07?7j  3"  "^^  Travri  irpdyiiaTi  = 
ysn^'i^,  4"  Kal  6  lis  =  inNSi,  9^  6  Ki(jjv=^^.?!^,  etc.;  p  used  in  com- 
parison, rendered  by  vir^p  with  ace.  more  than  twenty  times,  as  e.g., 
in  2";  the  rendering  of  □"'?:>'3  by  Kadodovs,  6^  7^^-  ^^^;  of  S>:)  by  irapa, 
with  a  Gen.,  5'°-  ^^  712.  (13,  gs  ^3";  31:3  by  ay  ad  u}(T}j-n,  4^  510.  "6^-  ^  f*-  ^^ 
9^*.  These  are  but  a  few  of  the  examples.  Many  more  will  be 
found  in  the  work  of  McNeile  already  cited.  Jerome  mentions  twice 
(Opera,  V,  32  and  624)  Aquila's  second  edition,  which  the  Hebrews 
call  Kar'  aKpi^eiav,  and  Graetz  and  McNeile  have  made  it  altogether  prob- 
able that  Aquila's  first  edition  is  that  embodied  in  CS.  Thus  only  can 
one  account  for  the  marked  approach  to  Aquila's  style  and  peculiarities, 
combined  with  some  equally  striking  differences  from  the  fragments  of 
Aquila,  preserved  by  Origen.  Dillman  had  urged  these  differences  as 
an  objection  to  the  theory  that  Aquila  translated  our  (^,  but  as  Mc- 
Neile observes,  a  second  edition  presupposes  differences,  and  it  is  difficult 
to  think  that  a  later  hand  adapted  (H  to  Aquila's  later  work  without 
doing  it  in  a  more  thorough-going  manner. 

Whether  there  had  been  an  earlier  translation  of  Qoheleth  than 
Aquila's  first  edition  is  uncertain,  but  on  the  whole  we  conclude 
that  there  probably  had  not  been.  The  work  had  only  recently 
been  approved  as  canonical  beyond  dispute  (see  above  §3),  and 


lO  ECCLESIASTES 

it  is  probable  that  shortly  afterward  Aquila  undertook  its  trans- 
lation. The  translation  which  we  have  in  (S  was  at  all  events 
made  from  a  text  which  differed  a  good  deal  from  our  present 
Hebrew,  and  was  therefore  made  from  a  text  that  Aqiba  had  not 
revised.  Possibly  it  was,  as  McNeile  thinks,  in  part,  because  his 
first  edition  was  made  from  a  text  that  Aqiba,  his  teacher,  did  not 
approve,  that  Aquila  undertook  his  revision  which  resulted  in 
his  "second  edition." 

If  these  views  are  correct,  the  translation  of  Qoheleth  which 
we  have  in  (^  was  made  in  the  second  quarter  of  the  second 
century  A.D. 

The  text  of  (I  for  the  book  of  Ecclesiastes  has  been  preserved  in 
five  uncial  MSS.  and  in  fifteen  cursives,  which  have  been  studied,  though 
of  the  cursives  three  contain  only  a  part  of  the  book.  The  uncial  MSS. 
are:  (i)  The  famous  Codex  Vaticanus  {(&^)  in  the  Vatican  Library  at 
Rome,  usually  cited  as  B,  which  dates  from  the  fourth  century.  The 
labors  of  Westco'tt  and  Hort  on  the  New  Testament  vindicated  the  text 
of  this  MS.  as  on  the  whole  the  best  for  that  part  of  the  Bible,  and  the 
labors  of  Swete  on  the  Greek  text  of  the  Old  Testament  tend  to  confirm 
these  results  for  the  older  part  of  the  Canon.  (2)  The  famous  Codex 
Sinaiticus  (Ci»^),  found  by  Tischendorf  on  Mount  Sinai,  1844-1859, 
and  now  preserved  in  the  Library  at  St.  Petersburg.  It  is  sometimes 
cited  by  scholars  as  n,  sometimes  as  S.  It  was  also  written  in  the  fourth 
century  and  as  an  authority  for  the  text  falls  little  short  of  B.  (3)  The 
Codex  Alexandrinus  (d^),  written  in  the  fifth  century,  now  in  the  Brit- 
ish Museum  cited  as  A.  (4)  Codex  Ephraemi  (CI'-),  also  of  the  fifth 
century — a  fine  palimpsest  MS.  now  in  the  National  Library  at  Paris, 
cited  as  C.  (5)  Codex  Venetus  ((i>^),  written  in  the  eighth  or  ninth 
century,  now  in  St.  Mark's  Library,  Venice.  It  is  usually  cited  as  \ 
and  often  allies  itself  with  ^>**. 

Of  the  cursive  MSS.,  68,  written  in  the  fifteenth  century,  one  of  the 
treasures  of  the  Library  of  St.  Marks  at  Venice,  deserves  especial  men- 
tion. It  often  allies  itself  with  B.  McNeile  considers  it  especially  im- 
portant when  it  differs  from  B,  and  holds  it  to  be  the  most  important 
Greek  MS.  of  Ecclesiastes  extant  (see  his  Ecclesiastes,  136). 

For  fuller  accounts  of  the  MSS.,  see  Swete's  Introduction  to  the  Old 
Testament  in  Greek,  122-170;  Gregory's  Prolegomena  to  Tischendorf's 
Novum  Testamentum  Grace,  also  his  Textkritik  des  Neuen  Testaments, 
and  Scrivener's  Plain  Introduction  to  the  Criticism  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment, 4th  ed.  by  Miller,  Vol.  I.     Br.sHS^  p.  195/. 

It  is  possible  from  the  extant  witnesses  to  the  text  of  (&  to  detect  in 
its  text  recensions  or  types,  kindred  to  those  which  Westcott  and  Hort 


TEXT  1 1 

have  identified  for  the  New  Testament.  It  is  for  this  reason  that  often 
in  citing  the  evidence  of  (S  the  Symbols  of  MSS.  are  affixed  as  (1^, 
(^^^,  etc.  For  analyses  of  the  text  of  ($,  see  Klostermann's  De  Lihri 
Coheleth  Versione  Alexandrina,  Kiel,  1892,  and  McNeile's  Introduction 
to  Ecdesiastes,  Cambridge,  1904,  pp.  115-168. 

(3).   THE  GREEK  VERSION  OF  AQUILA. 

Aquila  was  a  native  of  Pontus,  and  a  connection  of  the  emperor 
Hadrian,  who  employed  a  relative  of  Aquila 's  to  build  ^lia 
Capitolina  on  the  site  of  Jerusalem.  Aquila  accompanied  him, 
and  while  there  was  converted  to  Christianity.  As  he  refused  to 
abandon  the  heathen  practice  of  astrology,  he  was  excommuni- 
cated, and  in  disgust  joined  the  Jews.  He  undertook  a  translation 
of  the  Scriptures  into  Greek  in  order  to  set  aside  the  renderings 
of  the  Septuagint  which  seemed  to  support  the  Christians.  Of 
Jerome's  testimony  to  his  second  edition  of  his  rendering  of 
Qoheleth,  we  have  already  spoken,  and  have  shown  that  in  all 
probabihty  the  version  which  Origen  preserved  as  Aquila 's  was 
this  second  edition.  This  second  edition  was  probably  made  from 
the  text  revised  by  Aquila,  for  it  differs  far  less  widely  than  (H  from 
the  Massoretic  Text.  If  we  are  right  in  thinking  that  there  was 
no  Greek  version  of  Ecdesiastes  until  Aquila's  first  edition,  then 
both  his  editions  have  survived,  the  first  entire  as  (^  and  the 
second  in  fragments  as  'A,  the  symbol  by  which  Aquila  is  quoted 
below.  These  fragments  have  been  collated  by  Montfaufon  in 
his  Hexaploriim  Originis  quce  super  sunt,  17 13,  and  by  Field  in  his 
Originis  Hexaploriim  quce  siiperstint,  Oxford,  1875,  and  cover 
practically  the  whole  book. 

For  fuller  accounts  of  Aquila's  version,  cf.  Swete,  op.  cit.,  31-42 
and  55;  McNeile,  op.  cit.,  11 5-134;  Burkitt's  Fragments  of  the 
Books  of  Kings  according  to  the  Translation  of  Aquila,  1S97; 
C.  Taylor's  Cairo-Genizah  Palimpsests,  1900,  and  Schiirer's  Ge- 
schichte  des  judischen  Volkes,  etc.,  3d  ed..  Vol.  HI,  318-321. 

(4).      THE   VERSION   OF    THEODOTIAN. 

Another  version  was  made  in  the  second  century  A.D.  by  Theo- 
dotian,  who  seems  to  have  Hved  at  Ephesus.     His  work  was 


1 2  FXCLESIASTES 

known  to  Irenaeus  (d.  202  A.D.),  who  calls  him  a  native  of  Pontus, 
and  says  that  he  became  a  convert  to  Judaism  in  mature  life. 
It  is  thought  that  in  some  of  these  details  Irenaeus  confused  The- 
odotian  with  Aquila.  It  is  hardly  likely  that  two  different  men 
who  learned  Hebrew  in  mature  life  should  make  translations  of 
the  Scriptures  for  the  Jews  in  the  same  century.  Irenaeus  is, 
however,  probably  right  in  saying  that  Theodotian  lived  at 
Ephesus.  Theodotian's  version  of  Daniel  seems  to  have  found  its 
way  into  the  Septuagint,  as  we  have  supposed  that  Aquila's  first 
translation  of  Ecclesiastes  did.  The  work  of  Theodotian  is  other- 
wise known  to  us  only  through  the  Hexapla  of  Origen,  and  that 
has  survived  only  in  fragments.  Theodotian's  renderings  do  not 
differ  so  widely  from  the  Septuagint  as  do  those  of  Aquila,  nor  so 
often  from  MT.  as  those  of  (^.  But  Dr.  Swete  says:  "He  seems  to 
have  produced  a  free  revision  of  the  Septuagint  rather  than  an  in- 
dependent version."  Theodotian's  renderings  of  Qoheleth  which 
have  survived  afford  interesting  variants  to  every  chapter  of  the 
book.  They  are  contained  in  the  works  of  Montfau^on  and 
Field  cited  above. 

For  a  fuller  account  of  Theodotian  see  Swete,  op.  ciL,  pp.  42-49; 
Gwynn,  ''Theodotian,"  in  Smith  and  Wace's  Did.  of  Christian 
Biog.,  and  Schiirer,  Geschichte,  etc.,  Vol.  Ill,   321-324. 

(5).      THE   VERSION   OF    SYMMACHUS. 

A  fourth  translation  of  the  Hebrew  into  Greek  was  made  by 
Symmachus  near  the  end  of  the  second  or  the  beginning  of  the 
third  century  A.D.  Eusebius  and  Jerome  say  that  Symmachus 
was  an  Ebionite  Christian,  but  according  to  Epiphanius  he  was  a 
Samaritan  who  embraced  Judaism.  Epiphanius  was  a  blunderer, 
however,  and  the  probability  is  that  even  if  Symmachus  was  of 
Jewish  or  Samaritan  parentage,  he  became  an  Ebionite.  Jerome 
correctly  declares  that  the  aim  of  Symmachus  was  to  express  the 
sense  of  the  Hebrew  rather  than  to  follow  the  order  of  its  words. 
His  version  shows  that  he  aimed  to  set  himself  free  from  the  in- 
fluence of  the  Septuagint  as  well  as  to  write  good  Greek.  Swete 
thinks  that  Symmachus  had  before  him  the  three  other  Greek 


TEXT 


13 


versions  when  he  made  his  own,  and  that  he  exhibits  his  indepen- 
dence of  them  all  and  sometimes  of  the  Hebrew  as  well.  In  spite 
of  this  charge  it  is  often  true  that  he  has  caught  the  meaning  of  the 
Hebrew  and  correctly  expressed  it  in  Greek.  His  version  was 
employed  by  Origen  as  early  as  228  A.D.,  and  was  so  highly  re- 
garded by  that  ancient  scholar,  that  he  gave  it  a  place  in  his 
Hexapla.  His  translation  of  Ecclesiastes  affords  numerous 
interesting  variants  for  every  chapter  of  the  book.  They  are 
presented  by  ^lontfaufon  and  Field  in  the  works  cited  above. 

For  a  fuller  account  of  Symmachus  see  Swete,  op.  cit.,  40-53; 
Gwynn,  op.  cit.;  Harnack,  Geschichte  der  altchristlichen  Litera- 
ture, I,  209^.,  and  Chronologie  der  altchr.  Literatur,  H,  164^.,  and 
Perles,  ''Symmachus,"  in  JE.,  XI,  619. 

(6).      THE   COPTIC   VERSION. 

The  Bible  is  thought  to  have  been  translated  into  the  Egyptian 
dialects  before  the  end  of  the  second  century.  This  translation 
was  made  from  the  Septuagint  version,  so  that  the  various  Egyp- 
tian versions — Bohairic,  Memphitic,  and  Sahidic — are  in  reality 
witnesses  for  the  text  of  the  Septuagint.  Accounts  of  these  ver- 
sions are  given  in  Swete,  op.  cit.,  104-108,  and  in  the  works  of 
Gregory  and  Scrivener  cited  above.  In  S.  Bibliorum  Fragmenta 
Copto-Sahidica  Musei  Borgiani,  edited  by  Ciasca,  1880,  Vol.  II, 
pp.  195-254,  the  whole  of  Qoheleth  in  a  Sahidic  translation,  ex- 
cept 9^-10^,  is  included.  This  text  was  collated  by  Euringer  for 
his  work  Der  Masorahtext  des  Koheleth  kritisch  untersucht,  1890. 
These  readings  usually  support  the  readings  of  (S.  This  version 
is  cited  below  as  IC. 

(7),      THE   SYRIAC   PESHITTA. 

The  origin  of  this  version  is  involved  in  much  obscurity.  Theo- 
dore of  Mopsuestia  declared  that  no  one  knew  who  the  translator 
was.  {Cf.  Migne,  P.  G.,  LXVI,  241.)  The  version  was,  however, 
made  during  the  early  centuries  of  the  Christian  era.  The  Pen- 
tateuch was  translated  from  the  Hebrew,  though  in  Isaiah,  the 
Minor  Prophets,  and  the  Psalms  the  Septuagint  has  had  consid- 


14  •  ECCLESIASTES 

erable  influence.  A  study  of  the  Peshitta  text  of  Qoheleth  with 
a  view  of  determining  its  relation  to  the  Massoretic  text  on  the  one 
hand  and  the  Septuagint  on  the  other  was  made  by  Kamenetzky 
in  ZAW.,  XXIV  (1904),  181-239/  Kamenetzky's  conclusion,  with 
which  my  own  use  of  the  Peshitta  leads  me  to  agree,  is  that  for 
the  most  part  the  Syriac  was  translated  from  a  Hebrew  text  which 
in  most  places  agreed  with  MT.,  though  in  some  places  it  differed 
from  it  and  at  some  points  it  has  been  influenced  by  (I.  This 
version  is  represented  in  the  following  pages  by  the  symbol  ^. 
Fuller  accounts  of  the  Peshitta  will  be  found  in  the  works  of 
Swete,  Gregory  and  Scrivener,  already  frequently  referred  to. 

(8).      THE   SYRO-HEXAPLAR   VERSION. 

This  translation  was  made  by  Paul  of  Telia  in  616  and  617  A.D. 
from  the  Septuagint  column  of  Origen's  Hexapla.  It  is  in  reality, 
therefore,  a  witness  for  the  text  of  the  Septuagint.  It  is  cited 
below  as  ^".  For  a  fuller  account  of  it  and  the  literature  see  Swete, 
op.  cit.,  1 1 2-1 16.  The  standard  edition  of  it  for  Ecclesiastes  is 
still  Middledorpf's  Codex  Syraco-Hexaplaris,  etc.,  1835. 

(9).      OLD    LATIN   VERSION. 

The  origin  of  the  early  Latin  version  or  versions  of  the  Bible 
is  involved  in  as  much  obscurity  as  that  of  the  Syriac  or  Egyp- 
tian versions.  It  is  clear  that  a  translation  was  made  into  Latin 
at  an  early  date,  and  that  by  the  end  of  the  fourth  century  there 
were  wide  variations  in  its  MSS.  Samples  of  these  variations  are 
furnished  by  Swete,  op.  cit.,  pp.  89-91.  This  early  translation 
appears  to  have  been  made  from  the  Septuagint.  Our  sources 
for  the  text  of  this  Old  Latin  are  in  large  part  Patristic  quotations 
of  the  Old  Testament.  These  were  collected  with  great  care 
and  fulness  by  Peter  Sabatier  in  his  Bibliorum  sacroriim  LatincE 
versiones  antiques,  Rheims,  1743,  which  was  employed  by  Euringer 
and  is  frequently  quoted  in  his  Masorahtext  des  Koheleth.  Sa- 
batier's  work,  however,  was  published  more  than  a  century  and  a 
half  ago,  and  his  quotations  now  need  to  be  tested  by  later  editions 
of  the  Fathers.     Some  readings  for  Ecclesiastes  from  a  MS.  of 


TEXT  I 5 

St.  Gall  may  be  found  in  S.  Berger's  Notices  et  extraits,  p.  137^. 
I  have  attempted  to  make  little  use  of  this  version,  but  it  is  cited 
below  a  few  times  as  2i.  The  works  of  Swete,  Gregory  and  Scriv- 
ener contain  discussions  of  this  translation. 

(10).      THE    LATIN   VULGATE. 

The  basis  of  this  translation  was  made  by  St.  Jerome  (Eusebius 
Hieronymus)  between  383  and  420  A.D.  It  was  Jerome's  plan 
to  translate  from  the  Hebrew,  but  his  version  was  made  with  a 
full  knowledge  of  the  material  which  Origen  had  collected  in  the 
Hexapla.  His  Ecclesiastes  was  made  from  a  text  which  generally 
agreed  with  MT.,  though  it  sometimes  departs  from  it  in  most 
suggestive  ways.  Full  accounts  of  Jerome's  work  are  given  in 
the  works  of  Gregory  and  Scrivener  referred  to  above,  and  in 
Smith  and  Wace's  Did.  of  Christian  Biography.  This  version  is 
designated  by  the  symbol  H. 

(11).      THE   ARABIC   VERSION. 

In  the  commentary  which  follows  the  Arabic  version  is  some- 
times quoted.  This  is  the  Arabic  version  which  was  published 
in  the  London  Polyglot  of  1656  and  the  Paris  Polyglot  of  1630. 
It  is  believed  to  be  the  translation  of  Saadia  Gaon,  who  died 
in  942. 

The  Hexateuch  seems  to  have  been  translated  from  the  Hebrew; 
Judges,  Ruth,  parts  of  Kings,  Nehemiah  and  Job  from  the  Pe- 
shitta;  while  the  other  poetical  books  and  the  prophets  seem  to 
be  dependent  on  the  Septuagint.  In  Qoheleth  the  Arabic,  where 
it  departs  from  MT., usually  allies  itself  with  (&.  It  is  referred  to 
below  by  the  symbol  A.  Possibly  only  the  Hexateuch  was  trans- 
lated by  Saadia,  as  that  was  made  from  the  Hebrew  text.  For 
accounts  of  the  Arabic  version,  see  Swete,  op.  cit.,  iio^.,  and 
Gottheil,  in  JE.,  Ill,  189. 

(12).      THE   TARGUM. 

As  the  KHuhini  were  not  interpreted  in  the  synagogue  services, 
Targumim  of  them  {i.e.,  interpretations  into  the  Aramaic  spoken 


1 6  ECCLESIASTES 

])y  the  people)  were  not  written  as  early  as  the  rest  of  the  Bible. 
That  on  the  Psalter  was  not  made  in  its  present  form  before  the 
ninth  century.  No  Targum  of  the  Megilloth  is  mentioned  in  any 
work  older  than  the  Aruk  (Dictionary)  of  Nathan  ben  Jehiel, 
which  was  completed  in  iioi  A.D.  These  Targumim  are  prob- 
ably, therefore,  in  their  present  form,  not  earlier  than  the  tenth 
century,  though  they  may  go  back  to  oral  interpretations  which 
are  much  earlier. 

The  Targum  of  Qoheleth  is  a  free  paraphrase  combined  with  a 
midrashic  interpretation.  Occasionally  the  text  is  followed 
closely,  but  more  often  the  interpretation  freely  departs  from  it, 
for  the  sake  of  covering  up  sceptical  expressions  which  were  ob- 
noxious to  orthodox  Jews.  These  expressions  are  often  turned 
so  as  to  commend  the  study  of  the  law^  and  support  the  most 
orthodox  doctrines  and  devout  course  of  life.  Solomon  is  be- 
lieved to  be  the  author  of  Qoheleth,  and  many  allusions  in  it  are 
interpreted  to  refer  to  events  in  his  life  and  that  of  his  son  Reho- 
boam.  Nevertheless,  the  Targum  is  frequently  an  important 
witness  to  the  text,  and  helps  us  to  correct  MT.  It  is  cited  as  ©. 
In  addition  to  the  publication  of  the  Targum  of  Qoheleth  accessible 
in  the  Polyglots  a  recension  has  recently  been  published  from 
South  Arabic  MSS.  by  Alfred  Levy,  entitled  Das  Targum  zu 
Koheleth  nach  sitdarahischen  Handschnften,  Breslau,  1905.  For 
a  more  complete  account  of  the  Targumim  and  the  literature  upon 
them,  see  Bacher's  article  "Targum,"  in  JE.,  XIII, _^. 

(13).      QUOTATIONS    IN   THE   TALMUD. 

The  Jewish  writers  of  the  first  seven  centuries  of  the  Christian 
era  frequently  quoted  the  OT.  These  quotations  ought  to  per- 
form for  the  text-criticism  of  the  OT.  the  same  service  that  pa- 
tristic quotations  perform  for  the  NT.  Euringer  in  his  Masorah- 
text,  already  referred  to,  has  collected  these  quotations  for  Qoheleth 
from  the  Mishna,  and  the  parts  of  the  Babylonian  and  Jerusalem 
Talmuds  which  were  made  up  to  the  seventh  century.  Of  the 
221  verses  in  Qoheleth,  a  part  or  all  of  122  are  quoted  in  these 
Jewish  writings,  and  some  of  them  many  times.     These  quotations 


TEXT  17 

have  too  often  been  assimilated  to  MT.,  to  be  of  much  service, 
but  they  sometimes  present  interesting  variations  from  it.  Where 
quoted  below,  they  are  designated  by  the  name  of  the  Talmudic 
tract  in  which  the  quotation  is  made. 

An  idea  of  the  sort  of  textual  variation  presented  in  these  Talmudic 
quotations  may  be  seen  in  the  following  examples.  In  Qoh.  i^^  ]pp'''  is 
written  defectively.  The  passage  is  quoted  twice  in  the  Mishna, 
Khagiga,  i*^,  Sukkah,  2^,  and  twice  in  the  Talmud,  Yehamoth,  22^, 
BerakotJi,  26',  and  in  all  cases  but  the  last  it  is  written  fully,  pp-'^. 
Qoh.  4"  has  l^Sjn,  but  the  Qr.  ^'?J-^.  Bab.  Bemkoth,  23%  Jer.  Berak., 
4\  if,  and  Megill,  71^  all  read  I'^Ji,  Tosephta,  if,  only  supporting 
-f'^j-i.  In  the  same  verse  MT.  has  -ic\s'3  in  which  it  is  supported  by 
Berakoth,  23^,  but  the  other  Talmudic  quotations  of  the  verse  (just 
given)  read  •^t'i<2,  as  do  CI  and  0.  In  Qoh.  5^  the  Kt.  is  nvi,  the  Qr. 
Nin.     Sifre  60''  reads  N>n  with  Kt. 

Qoh.  1 2*^  has  as  Kt.  pn-i"';  as  Qr.  pr-\\  Sabbath,  151^,  and  Semakhot, 
44%  support  the  Qr.  i'»ni\ 

(14).      RECENSIONS    OF    THE    TEXT. 

There  are  persistent  and  probably  trustworthy  traditions  that 
Rabbi  Aqiba,  who  had  such  an  influence  in  systematizing  and 
perfecting  the  Jewish  oral  law  and  system  of  hermeneutics,  also 
with  the  aid  of  Aquila,  his  pupil,  attempted  to  fix  the  text  of  the 
Bible.  He  was  the  creator  in  a  sense  of  the  Rabbinical  Bible. 
(See  Ginsburg's  article  "Akiba,"  JE.,  I,  306.)  That  the  first 
Greek  translation  of  Qoheleth,  commonly  called  the  Septuagint 
version,  was  probably  made  by  Aquila,  has  been  shown  above, 
where  it  also  was  pointed  out  that  the  differences  between  the 
Hebrew  underlying  the  Septuagint  and  the  Hebrew  text  of  later 
times  indicates  that  Aquila  made  the  Septuagint  version  of  Qohe- 
leth before  Aqiba  had  revised  the  text.  McNeile  is,  therefore, 
right  in  holding  that  by  a  right  critical  use  of  (B  we  can  obtain  a 
pre-Aqiban  recension  of  Qoheleth. 

Some  of  the  readings  which  Aqiba  adopted  in  the  Hebrew 
text  underwent  alterations  by  later  hands,  as  McNeile  has  shown 
(Ecclesiastes ,  153-156).  In  the  history  of  the  text  of  our  book,  we 
may  then  discern  three  recensions.     Leaving  out  of  account  the 


1 8  ECCLESIASTES 

eddies  and  side  currents  of  corruption  and  transmission  which  in- 
evitably manifest  themselves  in  MSS.  and  versions,  these  re- 
censions are  the  pre-Aquilan  recension,  the  Aquilan  recension  and 
the  Massoretic  recension.  A  careful  study  of  the  text  on  those 
sane  principles  which  Tischendorf  and  Westcott  and  Hort  have 
established  for  the  New  Testament,  reveals  the  fact  that  the  text 
of  Qoheleth  has  been  transmitted,  on  the  whole,  with  great  fidelity. 
These  recensions  differ  from  one  another  far  less  than  one  would 
expect,  and  affect  comparatively  few  passages. 

The  best  text-critical  work  hitherto  done  on  Ecclesiastes  is  that  of 
McNeile  in  his  Introduction  to  Ecclesiastes,  to  which  reference  has  sev- 
eral times  been  made.  The  more  drastic  work  of  Bickell,  based  on  his 
theory  of  dislocations,  as  well  as  that  of  Zapletal  and  Haupt,  based  on 
a  metrical  theory  of  the  book,  are  in  most  cases  conjectures  which  rest 
on  unproven  premises.  A  criticism  of  their  metrical  theories  will  be 
found  in  §9.  Winckler's  emendations  (Altorientalische  Forschtmgen, 
IV)  (1896),  351-355,  are  also  usually  too  conjectural. 

With  the  exception  of  a  few  interpolations  and  a  very  little  edi- 
torial material  (see  below,  §7),  the  work  of  Qoheleth  has  come 
down  to  us  modified  by  design  or  error  far  less  than  is  the  case 
with  most  of  the  Old  Testament  books.  This  is  due,  un- 
doubtedly, to  the  fact  that  it  had  undergone  no  long  history  of 
transmission  and  frequent  copying  before  Aqiba  set  those  forces 
to  work  which  made  further  serious  alterations  in  the  text  well- 
nigh  impossible, 

§   5.      HISTORY   OF    THE   INTERPRETATION. 

It  is  possible  in  the  space  at  our  disposal  to  treat  the  history  of 
the  interpretation  of  Ecclesiastes  only  in  outline.  We  cannot,  as 
Ginsburg  has  done  in  his  Coheleth,  go  into  the  merits  and  demerits 
of  all  the  commentaries  of  Qoheleth,  that  have  ever  been  written, 
whether  Jewish  or  Christian.  Those  who  are  interested  in  such 
curious  details  are  referred  to  the  '' Introduction"  of  Ginsburg's 
work,  pp.  30-245.  It  will  be  possible  here  to  treat  in  detail  only 
a  few  of  the  more  important  works  of  recent  years,  the  theories 
set  forth  in  which  are  living  issues  of  present-day  exegesis. 


HISTORY   OF  THE   INTERPRETATION  1 9 

The  earliest  commentaries  on  Ecclesiastes  are  probably  rep- 
resented in  the  Jewish  Midrashim,  the  beginnings  of  which  go 
back  to  the  period  w^hen  the  canonicity  of  the  book  was  first  fully 
recognized,  if  not  to  a  date  even  earlier.  These  works  were  com- 
posed for  the  edification  of  congregations,  and  while  the  literal 
sense  of  a  passage  was  not  ignored,  if  that  sense  was  at  all  edifying, 
or  would  not  give  offense  by  its  unorthodox  character,  nevertheless 
the  greatest  liberties  were  taken  with  the  text  when  it  seemed 
necessary  to  find  edification  or  orthodoxy  in  a  passage  which  ob- 
viously contained  none.  The  general  view  of  these  Midrashim 
was  that  Solomon  wrote  Qoheleth  in  his  old  age,  when  wTary  of 
life,  to  ''expose  the  emptiness  and  vanity  of  all  worldly  pursuits 
and  carnal  gratifications,  and  to  show  that  the  happiness  of  man 
consists  in  fearing  God  and  obeying  his  commands." 


As  was  pointed  out  above  (p.  15^),  the  Targum  of  Qoheleth  is  such  a 
midrashic  interpretation.  In  it  unspiritual  passages  are  treated  as 
follows: 

Ch.  2^^ — "  There  is  nothing  better  for  a  man  than  that  he  should  eat 
and  drink  and  enjoy  himself,"  etc. — runs  in  the  Targum:  "There  is 
nothing  that  is  more  beautiful  in  man  than  that  he  should  eat  and  drink 
and  show  his  soul  good  before  the  children  of  men,  to  perform  the  com- 
mandments and  to  walk  in  the  ways  which  are  right  before  Him,  in  order 
that  he  may  gain  good  from  his  labors." 

Again  518 — "A  good  that  is  beautiful  is  it  to  eat  and  drink  and  see 
good,"  etc. — the  Targum  converts  into:  "Good  is  it  for  the  children  of 
men  and  beautiful  for  them  to  work  in  this  world  that  they  may  eat  and 
drink  from  their  labor  so  as  not  to  stretch  out  a  hand  in  violence  or 
plunder,  but  to  keep  the  words  of  the  law  and  to  be  merciful  to  the  poor 
in  order  to  see  good  in  their  labor  in  this  world  under  the  sun." 

Similarly  9^ — "Go  eat  thy  bread  with  joy  and  drink  thy  wine  with  a 
glad  heart,  for  already  God  has  accepted  thy  works"  is  changed  into — 
"Said  Solomon  by  the  spirit  of  prophecy  from  before  Jah,  'The  Lord  of 
the  world  shall  say  to  all  the  righteous  one  by  one,  Go  taste  with  joy 
thy  bread  which  has  been  given  to  thee  on  account  of  the  bread  which 
thou  hast  given  to  the  poor  and  the  unfortunate  who  were  hungry,  and 
drink  with  good  heart  thy  wine  which  is  hidden  for  thee  in  the  Garden 
of  Eden,  for  the  wine  which  thou  hast  mingled  for  the  poor  and  needy 
who  were  thirsty,  for  already  thy  good  work  has  been  pleasing  before 
Jah.'" 

To  men  who  could  read  thus  into  an  obnoxious  text  whatever  they 


20  ECCLESIASTES 

liked,  every  difficulty  disappeared.  Under  the  alchemy  of  allegory 
and  spiritualizing  all  became  easy.  Nevertheless  sometimes  these  Mid- 
rashim  found  a  way  of  anticipating  the  theses  of  modern  criticism  that 
parts  of  the  book  refer  to  the  exile  or  later.  Thus  the  Targum  says  of 
I- — "Vanity  of  vanities,"  etc. — "When  Solomon,  the  king  of  Israel, 
saw  by  the  spirit  of  prophecy,  that  the  kingdom  of  Rehoboam,  his  son, 
would  be  divided  with  Jeroboam,  the  son  of  Nebat,  and  Jerusalem 
and  the  sanctuary  would  be  destroyed  and  that  the  people  of  Israel 
would  go  into  captivity,  he  spoke  saying,  'Vanity  of  vanities  is  this 
world,  vanity  of  vanities  is  all  for  which  I  and  David  my  father  have 
labored — all  is  vanity." 

Meantime,  among  Christians,  the  book  of  Ecclesiastes  was 
being  interpreted  by  similar  methods.  The  earhest  Christian 
commentator  on  Qoheleth  was  Gregory  Thaumaturgus,  who  died 
in  270  A.D.,  whose  Metaphrasis  in  Ecdesianten  Solomonis  gives 
an  interpretative  paraphrase  of  the  book.  The  genuineness  of 
this  work  has  been  questioned,  some  assigning  it  to  Gregory 
Nazianzen,  but  Harnack  still  assigns  it  to  Thaumaturgus.  {Ge- 
schichte  der  altchristlichen  Literatur,  I,  430,  and  Chronologie, 
II,  99.)  Gregory  regards  Solomon  as  a  prophet,  holding  that  his 
purpose  was  "to  show  that  all  the  affairs  and  pursuits  of  man 
which  are  undertaken  in  human  things  are  vain  and  useless,  in 
order  to  lead  us  to  the  contemplation  of  heavenly  things."  Gregory 
of  Nyssa  and  Jerome  followed  in  good  time  with  commentaries 
on  the  book,  and  each  pursued  a  similar  strain.  The  allegorical 
method  was  employed  in  its  most  developed  form,  especially  by 
Jerome,  who  wrote  his  commentary  to  induce  Basilica,  a  Roman 
lady,  to  embrace  the  monastic  life.  According  to  him,  the  purpose 
of  the  book  is  "to  show  the  utter  vanity  of  every  sublunary  enjoy- 
ment, and  hence  the  necessity  of  betaking  one's  self  to  an  ascetic 
life,  devoted  entirely  to  the  service  of  God!" 

Started  both  among  Jews  and  Christians  in  such  paths  as  these, 
the  interpretation  of  Ecclesiastes  meandered  with  various  windings 
through  the  Middle  Ages.  The  Jewish  commentators,  Tobia 
ben  Eleazar,  Rashi,  Rashbam,  Ibn  Ezra,  and  others  often  followed 
more  sober  and  sane  methods  than  many,  on  account  of  the  rise 
of  a  grammatical  school  of  exegesis  among  the  Jews  in  the  eleventh 
and  twelfth  centuries,  yet  even  from  them  allegory  and  fanciful 


HISTORY   OF   THE   INTERPRETATION  21 

interpretations  did  not  disappear.  Sometimes  a  Jew,  sometimes 
a  Christian,  grasped  fairly  well  the  purpose  of  Qoheleth,  but  most 
of  those  who  wrote  upon  it,  followed  either  in  the  footsteps  of  the 
Targum  or  of  Jerome. 

Martin  Luther  was  the  first  to  perceive  that  Solomon  cannot 
have  been  the  author  of  Ecclesiastes.  He  says  in  his  "Table 
Talk":  "Solomon  himself  did  not  write  the  book  of  Ecclesiastes, 
but  it  was  produced  by  Sirach  at  the  time  of  the  Maccabees.  ...  It 
is  a  sort  of  Talmud,  compiled  from  many  books,  probably  from 
the  library  of  King  Ptolemy  Euergetes  of  Eg}'pt." 

This  opinion  of  Luther  waited,  however,  more  than  a  century 
before  it  found  corroboration.  Hugo  de  Groot,  the  father  of 
international  law,  better  known  as  Grotius,  published,  in  1644, 
his  commentary  on  the  Old  Testament.  He  regarded  Ecclesiastes 
as  a  collection  of  opinions  of  different  sages,  originally  spoken  to 
different  peoples.  He  says:  "I  believe  that  the  book  is  not  the 
production  of  Solomon,  but  was  written  in  the  name  of  this  king, 
as  being  led  by  repentance  to  do  it.  For  it  contains  many  words 
which  cannot  be  found  except  in  Ezra,  Daniel  and  the  Chaldee 
paraphrasts." 

In  the  next  century  the  work  of  Grotius  began  to  produce  re- 
sults both  in  Germany  and  England.  Thus,  in  the  former  country, 
J.  D.  Michaelis  {Poetischer  Entwiirf  der  Gedanken  des  Prediger- 
Buchs  Solomons),  in  1751,  maintained  that  a  prophet  who  lived 
after  the  exile  wrote  Ecclesiastes  in  the  name  of  Solomon,  in 
order  that  he  might  be  able,  in  the  person  of  a  king  so  happy 
and  wise,  to  philosophize  all  the  more  touchingly  about  the  vanity 
of  human  happiness,  while  in  the  latter  country,  in  1753,  Bishop 
Lowth  declared  that  in  Ecclesiastes  "the  vanity  of  the  world  was 
exemplified  by  the  experience  of  Solomon,  who  is  introduced 
in  the  character  of  a  person  investigating  a  very  difficult  ques- 
tion" (cf.  Lectures  on  the  Sacred  Poetry  of  the  Hebrews,  xxiv) 
— thus  practically  admitting  the  non-Solomonic  authorship  of 
the  book. 

After  this  the  belief  that  Solomon  did  not  write  the  book  found 
increasingly  abundant  expression.  Eichhorn,  1779;  Doderlein, 
1784;  Spohn,  1785;  Dathe,  1789;  Jahn,  1793,  and  during  the  nine- 


2  2  ECCLESIASTES 

teenth  century  an  increasing  number  of  scholars  have  maintained 
the  same  view.  Doderlein  and  Dathe  dated  the  book  about  the 
time  of  the  Babylonian  exile.  Since  the  dawn  of  the  nineteenth 
century  scholarly  opinion  has  gradually  brought  the  date  of  the 
book  down,  first  to  the  Persian,  and  then  to  the  Greek,  period. 
The  following  list  is  not  exhaustive,  but  it  indicates  in  a  general 
way  how  scholars  have  grouped  themselves  with  regard  to  date. 
Those  who  hold  to  the  Persian  period  are  Ewald,  Knobel,  Heng- 
stenberg,  Heiligstedt,  De  Wette,  Vaihinger,  Ginsburg,  Zockler, 
Moses  Stuart  (Commentary  on  Ecdesiastes) ,  Delitzsch,  No- 
wack,  Wright,  Cox,  Vlock  and  Driver.  On  the  other  hand,  the 
following  have  assigned  it  to  the  Greek  period,  varying  from  330 
B.C.  (Noyes,  Job,  Eccl.  and  Cant.)  to  100  B.C.  (Renan),  viz.: 
Zirkel,  Noyes,  Hitzig,  Tyler,  Plumtre,  Renan,  Kuenen  {Poet. 
Biicher  des  A.  T.),  Strack  {Einleitimg),  Bickell,  Cheyne,  Dillon, 
Wildeboer,  Siegfried,  Davidson  {Bed:  in  EB.),  Peake  (Bed.  in 
DB.),  Cornill  (Einleitimg),  Bennett  (Introduction),  Winckler 
(Altorientalische  Forschungen,  2d  ser.,  143-159),  A.  W.  Sterne 
(Ecdesiastes  or  the  Preacher,  London,  1900),  Margouliouth 
(Eccl.  in  JE.),  Genung,  Haupt  and  McFadyen  (Introduction). 
Of  the  nineteenth  century  commentators  whom  I  have  studied, 
Wangemann  (1856)  alone  holds  to  the  Solomonic  date,  although 
Dale  (1873)  is  non-committal  with  reference  to  it.  Two  recent 
writers,  Marshall  and  McNeile  (both  1904),  are  unable  to  decide 
between  the  Persian  and  Greek  periods.  One  scholar,  Graetz 
(187 1 ),  holds  that  it  belongs  to  the  Roman  period  and  was  directed 
against  Herod  the  Great.  Briggs  says  that  it  ''is  the  latest  writing 
in  the  Old  Testament,  as  shown  by  its  language,  style  and  the- 
ology" (SHS.  321). 

It  is  clear  from  the  above  sketch  that  an  increasing  consensus 
of  opinion  places  our  book  in  the  Greek  period.  The  linguistic 
argument  for  the  non-Solomonic  authorship,  which  Grotius  began 
to  appreciate,  has  been  worked  out  to  a  complete  demonstration 
by  the  masterly  hand  of  the  late  Franz  Delitzsch. 

The  disconnected  character  of  the  book  of  Ecdesiastes  impressed 
Martin  Luther,  as  we  have  seen,  and  led  him  to  regard  the  work 
as  a  compilation.     This  fact  was  taken  up  and  advanced  by  others 


HISTORY   OF   THE   INTERPRETATION  23 

and,  finally,  in  the  hands  of  Yeard  (A  Paraphrase  upon  Ecclesi- 
astes,  London),  (1701),  Herder  (1778)  and  Eichhorn  (1779),  led 
to  the  view  that  Qoheleth  is  a  dialogue  between  a  refined  sensual- 
ist and  a  sensual  worldling,  who  interrupts  him,  or  between  a  teacher 
and  pupil.  A  similar  view  was  entertained  by  Kuenen.  Doder- 
lein  explained  these  inconcinnities  as  the  record  of  the  discussions 
of  an  "Academy,"  or  group  of  learned  men.  Bickell  explains 
them  by  the  supposition  that  the  leaves  of  an  early  MS.  became 
disarranged,  while  Siegfried,  McNeile  and  Haupt  explain  them 
on  the  supposition  of  later  interpolations.  Some  of  these  views 
will  be  examined  more  in  detail  below. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  unity  of  the  book  has  been  strenuously 
maintained  by  such  scholars  as  Ginsburg,  Zockler,  Delitzsch, 
Plumtre,  Wright,  Briggs,  Wildeboer,  Cornill  and  Genung.  Briggs 
classes  Koheleth  with  Job  as  a  type  of  moral  heroism  wTestling 
with  foes  to  the  soul,  and  winning  moral  victories  over  doubt 
and  error  (SHS.,  pp.  425-426).  Cornill  declares  that  ''Old 
Testament  piety  nowhere  enjoys  a  greater  triumph  than  in  the 
book  of  QoJieleth"  (Introduction  to  Can.  Bks.  of  OT.,  1907, 
p.  451).  Plumtre,  Briggs,  Cornill  et  al.  before  them,  regard  the, 
contradictory  expressions  of  the  book  as  the  varying  moods  of  the 
writer,  as  his  childhood's  faith  struggles  with  the  mass  of  doubt 
and  pessimism  which  fills  his  mind. 

Zirkel,  in  1792,  Untersuchungen  ither  den  Prediger,  propounded 
the  theory  that  Qoheleth  evinces  the  formative  influence  of  Greek 
thought  and  the  Greek  language — that  its  idiom  betrays  the 
presence  of  Greek  forms  of  speech,  and  that  the  influence  of  Stoic 
philosophy  is  no  less  evident. 

ZirkePs  view  was  revived  and  maintained  by  Hitzig  (Comm., 
1847),  Kleinert  (Der  Prediger  Solomo,  1864),  and  by  Thomas 
Tyler  in  his  Ecdesiastes — A  Contribution  to  its  Interpretation, 
London,  1874,  who  finds  in  the  book  evidences  of  Greek  hnguistic 
influence,  as  well  as  the  traces  both  of  Stoic  and  Epicurean 
thought.  Tyler  maintained  that  the  Sadducees  represented  Epi- 
curean influence,  and  the  Pharisees  Stoic  influence,  that  the  Tal- 
mud gives  proof  of  the  existence  of  Jewish  schools,  or  academies, 
and  that  the    mingling    of   contradictory  ideas  in  the  book  is 


24 


ECCLESIASTES 


accounted  for  by  supposing  that  the  work  is  a  record  of  the  discus- 
sions of  one  of  these  academies. 

Plumtre  maintains  {Ecclesiastes  in  Cambridge  Bible,  1881), 
as  does  Tyler,  that  there  are  two  streams  of  Greek  Philosophical 
influence,  one  Stoic  and  one  Epicurean,  but,  as  previously  re- 
marked, attributes  the  contradictions  to  the  varying  moods  of 
the  author,  whose  mind  gives  house-room  now  to  one  set  of 
opinions  and  now  to  another.  Pfleiderer  {Die  Philosophie  des 
Heraklit  von  Eph.,  nebst  Koheleth  nnd  besonders  im  Buch  der 
Weisheii,  1886)  maintained  the  existence  of  traces  of  Greek  in- 
fluence in  Qoheleth,  but  traced  them  to  Heraclitus. 

Siegfried  {Prediger  und  Hoheslied,  in  Nowack's  Handkom- 
mentar,  1898)  and  Haupt  (Koheleth,  oder  Weltschmerz  in  der 
Bible,  Leipzig,  1905,  the  Book  of  Ecclesiastes,  Baltimore,  1905) 
both  hold  to  this  Greek  influence  (though  Haupt  confines  it  to  the 
thought,  denying  any  linguistic  influence  from  Greek),  but  both 
account  for  the  different  philosophic  strains  by  supposing  that 
different  parts  of  the  work  are  from  different  writers.  These 
theories  will  be  set  forth  in  greater  detail  below.  From  this 
general  view  of  the  course  of  the  criticism  of  Ecclesiastes  we  pass 
to  examine  in  detail  some  of  the  more  important  theories  concern- 
ing it,  which  have  been  produced  within  the  last  forty  years. 

Graetz,  in  his  Koheleth  (187 1),  notes  that  Qoheleth  directs  his 
remarks  in  several  instances  against  a  tyrannical  king,  whom  he 
also  calls  a  slave  (so  Graetz  understood  "'"J).  Graetz  remarks 
that  none  of  the  Asmonaeans  were  tyrants,  and  argues  that  these 
characteristics  suit  Herod  the  Great  alone,  whom  the  Talmud 
{Baba  Bathra,  3b,  and  Ketiiboth,  24)  called  the  ''slave  of  the 
Asmonaeans."  To  this  period  he  thought  the  language  of  the 
book,  with  its  mingling  of  late  Hebrew  and  Aramaic  forms,  also 
pointed.  The  book  on  this  view  is  a  kind  of  political  satire. 
Graetz  denies  that  the  author  w^as  a  Sadducee,  and  regards  him 
as  a  young  Jew  of  the  mild,  strenuosity-abjuring  school  of  Hillel. 

Graetz  did  regard  the  author,  however,  as  an  out  and  out  sen- 
sualist, and  finds  as  he  interprets  Qoheleth  many  allusions  to  the 
gratifications  of  desire.  These  interpretations  have  been  shown 
by  many  later  commentators  to  be  in  most  cases  unwarranted. 


HISTORY   OF   THE   INTERPRETATION  25 

Qoheleth  was  no  advocate  of  debauchery,  as  is  proven  by  an  in- 
telligent interpretation  of  his  utterances  in  detail.  As  to  Graetz's 
Herodian  date  for  Koheleth  recent  commentators  find  it  too  late. 
The  external  evidence,  as  is  shown  below  (§13),  makes  it  impossible 
that  the  book  should  be  so  late. 

The  contradictions  of  the  book  Graetz  sought  to  soften  by  a 
theory  of  dislocations.  Such  a  theory  had  first  been  suggested 
by  J.  G.  van  der  Palm,  in  his  Ecclesiastes  philologice  et  critice 
illustratus,  Leyden,  1784.  Graetz  placed  ch.  71'-  12  after  ch.  5% 
removing  ch.  5^  to  take  their  place  after  ch.  71";  10^  he  removed 
to  come  after  8%  and  71^  he  placed  after  9'^  Later  commentators, 
however,  have  not  found  these  changes  sufficient  to  harmonize  the 
contents  of  the  book. 

Graetz  denied  that  the  last  six  verses  of  the  book  (123-1^), formed 
a  part  of  the  original  work.  Moreover,  he  held  that  these  were  to 
be  divided  between  two  hands.  Vv.'^-i^  were,  Graetz  held,  a  col- 
ophon to  the  whole  Hagiography,  written  at  the  time  Qoheleth 
was  received  into  the  canon,  as  Krochmal  had  previously  suggested. 
How  much  of  this  position  is  right,  and  what  part  of  it  is  untenable, 
will  appear  as  we  proceed. 

A  more  radical  theory  of  dislocations  was  put  forth  by  the  late 
Professor  Bickell  of  Vienna  in  1884  in  his  little  book,  Der  Prediger 
uher  den  Wert  des  Daseins,  also  set  forth  in  more  popular  form  in 
1886  in  his  Koheleth^ s  Untersuchung  uher  den  Wert  des  Daseins. 
Bickell  declared  that  the  book  is  unintelligible  as  it  stands,  and 
that  this  lack  of  clearness  was  produced  in  the  following  way. 
Qoheleth  was  written  in  book  form  on  fascicles  consisting  of  four 
leaves  once  folded,  or  four  double  leaves.  Each  single  leaf  con- 
tained about  525  letters.  Qoheleth  was  a  part  of  a  book  which 
contained  other  works  written  on  an  unknown  number  of  such 
fascicles. 

Qoheleth  began  on  the  sixth  leaf  of  one  fascicle  and  ended  on  the  third 
leaf  of  the  fourth  succeeding  fascicle.  On  the  first  three  leaves  (the  end 
of  the  first  fascicle)  stood  ch.  12-211,  on  the  fourth  and  fifth  leaves,  5 '-6^; 
on  the  sixth  and  seventh  leaves,  3'-4*;  on  the  eighth  and  ninth' leaves, 
212-38;  on  the  tenth  and  eleventh  leaves  (the  end  of  the  second  fascicle), 
8^-93  and  8^^;  on  the  twelfth  leaf,  9*i-io';  on  the  thirteenth  and  fourteenth 


26  ECCLESIASTES 

leaves,  6^-722  and  '";  on  the  fifteenth  and  sixteenth,  4^-5 *;  on  the  seven- 
teenth, io'6-iifi  and  5;  on  the  eighteenth,  723-85*;  on  the  nineteenth  (end 
of  the  third  fascicle),  lo^-'*  and  14*';  on  the  twentieth,  g^-ioj  on  the  twenty- 
first  and  probably  the  twenty-second,  11^-12^. 

The  string  which  held  these  fascicles  together  broke  and  the  middle 
fascicle  fell  out.  The  leaves  were  found  by  some  one  not  qualified  to  put 
them  together,  who  took  the  inner  half  of  the  second  fascicle,  folded  it 
inside  out,  and  then  laid  it  in  the  new  order  immediately  after  the  first 
fascicle.  Next  came  the  inner  sheet  of  the  third  fascicle,  followed  by 
the  outside  half  of  the  second,  into  the  middle  of  which  the  two  double 
leaves,  13,  18,  14,  17  had  already  been  inserted.  Although  the  fourth 
fascicle  kept  its  place,  it  did  not  escape  confusion,  for  between  its  leaves 
the  first  two  leaves  of  the  remaining  sheet  of  the  third  fascicle  found  a 
place.  Finally,  leaf  17,  becoming  separated  from  its  new  environment, 
found  a  resting  place  between  19  and  21.  This  dislocation  removed 
from  the  work  all  traces  of  its  plan. 

In  the  new  form  it  frequently  happened  that  some  of  the  edges  did 
not  join  properly — a  fact  which  led  in  time  to  the  insertion  of  glosses. 
From  this  dislocated  archetype  all  extant  texts  of  Qoheleth  have  de- 
scended. 

If  now  the  original  order  of  the  leaves  be  restored  and  the  glosses  re- 
moved, the  work  falls  into  two  distinct  halves,  a  speculative  and  a  practi- 
cal, each  distinguished  from  the  other  by  its  own  appropriate  character- 
istics.    According  to  Bickell  this  first  half  consisted  of  the  following: 

Ch.     I*— 2"     !C^-6^    S'"~4^    2^2b.    18-26.    12a.    13-17     ^1-8   8^-1^-    l^*.    17a.    16b.    17b     gl -3    8l5 

9" -18  iQi  6s-  10-12.  In  this  part  it  is  demonstrated  that  life  is  an 
empty  round,  and  that  wisdom  only  serves  to  make  its  possessor  modest, 
so  that  he  does  not  get  on  as  well  as  the  vainly  boasting  fool. 

Part  two  consisted  of  the  following:   Ch.   71=*   iqi  7ii'-6  6'  77-10-  13-19. 

n.  12.  21.  22.  20.  49-17  cl-8  J0I6-2O  11I-3.  6.  4.  5  y23-29  gl -4  io2-13  n'S  ((^\ 
IQUa..   15.   14b  q3-10   jj7-10a   i2la   ijlOb   j2lb-5.    8_ 

In  this  part  the  advice  of  Qoheleth  is,  in  view  of  the  fact  that  life  offers 
no  positive  good,  to  make  the  best  of  such  advantages  as  we  have,  to 
live  modestly  before  the  ruler  and  before  God,  and  to  expect  everything 
to  be  vanity. 

The  epilogue  Bickell  thought  was  from  a  later  hand.  This 
elaborate  theory,  rejected  by  most  scholars,  as  too  ingenious  and 
improbable,  has  been  accepted  in  full  by  Dillon,  who  sought  in  his 
Skeptics  of  the  Old  Testament,  1895,  ^^  commend  it  to  English 
readers.  The  theory  is  not  only  intricate  and  elaborate  to  a  de- 
gree which  creates  doubts  that,  if  it  were  true,  a  modern  scholar 
would  ever  have  divined  it,  but  it  breaks  down  archaeologically  in 


HISTORY    OF   THE   INTERPRETATION  27 

its  fundamental  assumption  that  the  book  form  had  succeeded 
the  roll  form  in  literary  libraries  at  a  date  sufficiently  early  for  it 
to  have  played  the  part  in  the  history  of  Qoheleth  supposed  by 
Bickell. 

If  an  accident,  such  as  Bickell  supposed,  had  happened  to  the 
exemplar  of  Ecclesiastes,  it  must  have  been  earlier  than  the  Greek 
translation  of  the  book,  for  the  same  confusion  which  Bickell  sup- 
poses is  present  in  the  Greek  as  well  as  in  the  Hebrew  text.  Even 
if  the  Greek  translation  were  made  as  late  as  we  have  supposed 
above,  that  was  at  a  date  in  all  probability  too  early  for  a  literary 
work  to  have  been  written  in  book  form.  An  examination  of  the 
published  papyri,  found  in  such  large  numbers  in  Egypt  by  Gren- 
fell  and  Hunt  in  recent  years,  tends  to  prove  that  literary  works 
were  written  in  roll  form  until  after  the  first  century  A.D.,  and 
that  the  book  form  did  not  supersede  the  roll  for  more  than  an- 
other hundred  years.  For  evidence,  see  e.g.,  the  Archceological 
Report  of  the  Eg\^t  Exploration  Fund,  1905-1906,  p.  10  ff.,  where 
literary  rolls  written  in  the  second  and  third  centuries  A.D.  are 
described.  See  also  Gregory-,  Canon  and  Text  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment, 1907,  p.  317  ff.,  who  holds  that  the  book  form  did  not 
come  in  until  ±  300  A.D.  The  fundamental  assumption  of 
Bickell's  theory  is  accordingly  improbable. 

In  presenting  this  theory-  to  English  readers,  Dillon  has  added 
a  new  element  to  the  study  of  the  book.  Being  an  Aryan  scholar, 
he  declares  {op.  cit.,  122  Jff.)  that  Buddhism  is  the  only  one  of  the 
world-religions  in  which  such  practical  fruits  as  we  see  exhibited 
in  Qoheleth  are  manifested.  Instead  of  going  to  Epicureanism 
to  explain  these,  he  accordingly  declares  that  they  are  due  to 
Buddhistic  influence.  King  Afoka  tells  us  (see  V.  A.  Smith's 
Acoka,  the  Buddhist  Emperor  of  India,  Oxford,  1901)  in  one  of 
his  inscriptions,  that  in  the  early  part  of  the  third  century  B.C. 
he  had  sent  Buddhistic  missionaries  to  the  court  of  the  Seleucidae 
at  Antioch  and  the  court  of  the  Ptolemies  at  Alexandria.  Dillon, 
accordingly,  declares  that  by  205  B.C.  Qoheleth,  even  if  he 
lived  in  Jerusalem,  might  have  known  Buddhism,  though  Dillon 
thinks  it  more  probable  that  he  lived  in  Alexandria. 

In  1894  Professor  Paul  Haupt,  in  a  paper  entitled  "The  Book 


28  ECCLESIASTES 

of  Ecclesiastes,"  published  in  the  Oriental  Studies  of  the  Oriental 
Club  of  Philadelphia,  declared,  "There  is  no  author  to  the  book  of 
Ecclesiastes,  at  any  rate  not  of  the  book  in  the  form  in  which  it 
has  come  down  to  us.  .  .  .  It  reminds  me  of  the  remains  of  a  daring 
explorer,  who  has  met  with  some  terrible  accident,  leaving  his 
shattered  form  exposed  to  the  encroachments  of  all  sorts  of  foul 
vermin.  ...  In  some  cases  there  are  half  a  dozen  parallel  strata 
of  glosses." 

This  hint  of  Haupt's  was  taken  up  by  D.  C.  Siegfried,  who  in 
his  Prediger  und  Hoheslied,  1898,  in  Nowack's  Handkommentar 
elaborated  it  into  the  theory  that  five  different  hands  contributed 
to  the  contents  of  Qoheleth,  and  two  different  epilogists  and  two 
different  editors  in  addition  have  taken  part  in  bringing  the  work 
into  its  present  form. 

According  to  Siegfried  the  original  work  was  composed  by  a  man  who 
was  imbued  with  an  un-Hebraic  spirit  of  pessimism,  but  who  cannot 
be  shown  to  have  been  influenced  by  Stoic  philosophy.  To  this  writer 
(Qi)    belong   the   following   sections:     Eccl.  i3-2'2  2'<''-24  ^i-g.  12.  15.  is. 

18-21     Al-i.    6-8.    13-16    elO-12.     13-17     51 -7     ylb-4.     15.     26-28     39.     10.      14.      16.     17     g2.      3.     5.     6 

iqs -^  To  this  work  a  Sadducee  (Q-),  who  had  come  under  the  in- 
fluence of  Epicureanism  added  the  following:  Ch.  3-  51 8-20  yn  gis 
g4.  7-10.  12  10' 9  11^  8»-  ^'^  i2ib-7a_  Anothcr  hand  (Q^),  a  Hokma  glossa- 
tor, contributed  the  following:  2^^-  "=^  4^  68-  ««  71'-  12.  19  gi  gu-is 
joi-3.    i2-i5_     Still    another   writer    (Q-"),  the  Chasid   glossator,    added: 

224b-26a    t11.    13.     14.     17     rl-2.     4-6.     7b-8    51O-I2     yl3.     17.     23-25.      2>J    82-8.     11-13    gl     j  jo.     9b 

j2ia.  7b,  Under  Q^  Siegfried  classifies  the  work  of  glossators  whose 
work  cannot  be  individualized,  assigning  to  them  the  following:    49-'2 

C3.    7a.     9.     12    ^la.    5.     6a.     7-10.      18.      20-22     gll      jqI.      8-11.     16-18.     20     i  1 1 -4 .     6_  "^Q    this 

compound  work  the  first  epilogist  (E'),  added  ch.  i2  9-  •",  a  second  epil- 
ogist  (E2),  12"  '2.  A  first  editor  (R^)  prefixed  ii  and  added  128,  while 
a  second  editor  (R^)  added  ch.  i2i'-  ".  Thus  Siegfried  thinks  he  can 
discern  nine  different  hands  in  the  composition  of  the  book,  and  one  of 
these  stands  for  an  indefinite  number  more. 

This  theory  of  Siegfried  greatly  overworks  an  undoubted  fact, 
viz.: — that  different  hands  have  had  a  part  in  making  the  book 
of  Ecclesiastes.  It  is  built  upon  the  supposition  that  absolutely 
but  one  type  of  thought  can  be  harbored  by  a  human  mind  while 
it  is  composing  a  book.     In  periods  of  transition,  on  the  contrary, 


HISTORY    OF   THE   INTERPRETATION  29 

one  can  give  house-room  to  widely  divergent  thoughts.  While 
this  fact  should  not  lead  us  to  think  that  a  writer  who  has  penned 
a  sentence  is  likely  flatly  to  contradict  himself  in  the  next,  it  should 
prevent  us  from  carrying  analysis  to  the  extent  which  Siegfried 
has  done. 

Zapletal,  in  1904,  in  his  little  book,  Die  Metrik  des  Bnches 
Kohelet,  maintained  the  thesis  that  Qoheleth  is  (or  was)  metrical 
throughout,  and  that  this  fact  enables  the  critic  to  reject  a  number 
of  later  glosses,  which  mar  the  metrical  form. 

In  1905  Haupt,  in  two  publications,  Koheleth,  pubHshed  in 
Leipzig,  and  TJie  Book  of  Ecclesiastes,  published  in  Baltimore, 
developed  still  further  the  view  that  he  had  set  forth  in  1894. 
Independently  of  Zapletal,  he  also  set  forth  the  theory  that  the 
book  was  written  in  metrical  form,  and  in  a  way  much  more 
thorough-going  than  Zapletal  has  revised  the  text  to  make  it  con- 
form to  metre. 

Haupt  has  in  these  works  carried  out  the  idea  expressed  eleven 
years  before  that  the  original  work  of  Qoheleth  has  been  piled  with 
glosses.  Of  the  222  verses  of  the  book,  he  retains  but  124  as  genu- 
ine— barely  more  than  half — and  even  from  these  many  small 
glosses  have  been  subtracted.  The  most  radical  feature  of 
Haupt's  work  is,  however,  his  rearrangement  of  the  material  which 
he  regards  as  genuine.  The  material  is  transposed  and  rejoined 
in  an  even  more  radical  way  than  Bickell  had  done,  and  without 
Bickell's  pala?ographical  reason  for  it.  Few  verses  are  left  in 
the  connection  in  which  we  find  them  in  our  Bibles,  so  that  an 
index  becomes  necessary  to  find  a  passage  in  the  book.  On  any 
theory  (except  Haupt's),  no  ancient  editor  took  such  liberties  with 
the  text  as  Haupt  himself  has  taken.  He  has  practically  rewritten 
the  book,  basing  his  changes  partly  on  his  metrical  theory,  but  in 
larger  measure  on  his  own  inner  sense  of  what  the  connections 
ought  to  be. 

As  to  the  date,  Haupt  beheves  that  the  original  Ecclesiastes 
was  written  by  a  prominent  Sadducaean  physician  in  Jerusalem, 
who  was  born  at  the  beginning  of  the  reign  of  Antiochus  Epiphanes 
(175-164)  and  died  in  the  first  decade  of  the  reign  of  Alexander 
Jannaeus  (104-79  B.C.).     The  author  may  have  been  a  king  in 


30 


ECCLESIASTES 


Jerusalem,  if  king  be  taken  as  in  Gittin,  62a,  and  Berakoth,  64a,  to 
mean  the  head  of  a  school.  The  genuine  portions  of  Ecclesiastes 
are  Epicurean,  while  in  the  Pharisaic  interpolations  Stoic  doc- 
trines are  found.  The  original  writer  may  have  completed  the 
book  about  100  B.C.,  when  he  was  75  years  old. 

This  view  of  the  date  ignores  the  important  testimony  of  the 
book  of  Ecclesiasticus,  which  will  be  presented  in  detail  below. 
Its  testimony  makes  the  interpretation  of  ch.  4^^-^^,  which  Haupt 
applies  to  Alexander  Balas,  and  on  which  he  mainly  relies  for  his 
date,  impossible,  tempting  as  that  interpretation  is.  The  idea  that 
Qoheleth  was  a  physician,  rests  upon  no  more  substantial  basis 
than  the  anatomical  interpretation  of  ch.  122-%  and  to  freeze  the 
poetic  metaphors  of  that  passage  into  anatomy,  is  no  more  justified 
than  to  freeze  the  poetic  metaphors  of  the  Psalms  into  theology. 
Ingenious  and  brilliant  as  Haupt's  work  is,  it  contributes  little 
to  the  real  understanding  of  Qoheleth,  as  in  almost  every  feature 
it  rests,  as  it  seems  to  me,  on  assumptions  which  are  incapable  of 
proof  and  do  not  commend  themselves.  Meantime,  in  1904, 
the  Cambridge  University  Press  had  issued  McNeile's  Intro- 
duction to  Ecclesiastes,  to  which  reference  has  already  been  made. 
This  work  is  important  from  the  higher  critical  as  well  as  from 
the  text-critical  point  of  view.  McNeile  recognizes  with  Haupt 
and  Siegfried  that  the  book  has  been  interpolated,  but  in  his  view 
the  interpolated  portions  are  far  smaller  than  they  suppose,  and  the 
process  of  interpolation  much  simpler. 

McNeile  recognizes  two  glossators,  a  Chasid  glossator  and  a  Hokma 
glossator.  To  the  former  he  assigns  ch.  2-®  (exc.  last  clause),  3"'»-  '^ 
417^1-6  718b.  26b.  2»  gib.  3a.   5.  6.1.  11-13  j  j 9b  i a^*'  i^.  14.     Xo  thc  lattcF,  ch. 

Ah.    9-1257.    9    ^la.     4-6a.     7-12.     19     gl     q17.     18     iqI-^-      8-14a.     15.      18.     19     I2"-      '2.        'J'q 

an  editor  he  assigns:  i^-  -  2-6  (last  clause),  y^''  128-10.  While  reasons 
will  be  given  below  for  dissenting  from  this  analysis  in  a  few  points,  the 
present  writer  has  again  and  again  found  himself  in  agreement  with 
McNeile.     The  reasons  for  this  agreement  will  be  set  forth  below. 

McNeile  also  differs  radically  from  Haupt  and  Siegfried  as  regards 
the  influence  of  Greek  philosophical  thought  on  Qoheleth,  main- 
taining that  there  is  no  clear  trace  of  it.  McNeile  adduces  strong 
reasons  for  supposing  that  the  point  of  view  expressed  in  the  book  of 


HISTORY   OF  THE   INTERPRETATION  3 1 

Ecclesiastes  is  the  natural  product  of  Semitic,  or,  more  specifically, 
of  Jewish  thought,  in  the  conditions  which  prevailed  in  late  post- 
exilic  time,  that  this  thought  resembles  Stoicism  in  a  general  way 
because  Stoicism  was  a  similar  product  of  Semitic  thought,  Zeno, 
the  founder  of  the  Stoics,  being  a  Phoenician  born  at  Kition  in 
Cyprus. 

In  the  same  year,  1904  Professor  Genung  of  Amherst  published 
his  Words  of  Koheleth,  in  which  he  essays  an  interpretation  more 
from  the  point  of  view  of  a  student  of  literature  than  from  that  of 
a  text-critic  or  an  ordinary  exegete.  Genung  argues  earnestly 
for  the  unity  of  Ecclesiastes  and  exhibits  Htde  patience  with  any 
divisive  theory.  He  regards  Qoheleth  as  the  first  in  Hebrew  thought 
to  follow  the  inductive  method,  and  explains  many  of  the  seeming 
contradictions  of  the  book  by  the  supposition  that  the  grafting  of 
the  inductive  method  onto  the  ordinary  forms  of  expression  em- 
ployed by  the  "Wisdom"  writers . would  necessarily  in  its  first 
attempt  betray  the  "prentice"  hand  and  leave  much  in  the  way 
of  literary  harmony  to  be  desired.  Qoheleth,  says  Genung,  "fre- 
quently reverts  to  a  mashal  to  clinch  his  argument."  Genung 
overlooks  the  fact  that  the  larger  part  of  the  proverbs  in  the  book 
do  not  cHnch,  but  interrupt  the  argument. 

In  Genung's  view  the  purpose  of  Qoheleth  was  to  recall  the  re- 
ligious spirit  of  the  time  back  to  reality,  and  that  the  result  of  his 
reasoning  is  to  make  life  issue,  not  in  religiosity,  but  in  character. 
There  is  an  element  of  truth  in  this,  but  Genung  has  greatly  over- 
worked it. 

On  one  point  Genung  speaks  with  the  authority  of  a  literary 
expert.  He  declares  that  Qoheleth  is  essentially  a  prose  book, 
having  the  prose  temper  and  the  prose  work  to  do.  *4t  contains 
little,  if  any,  of  that  lyric  intensity  which  riots  in  imagery  or  im- 
passioned eloquence."  He  also  justly  observes  that  the  form  of 
Hebrew  poetry  is  largely  absent  from  the  book,  declaring  that  for 
the  sake  of  continuity  of  thought  the  writer  has  abandoned  the 
hampering  form  of  poetry,  which  would  compel  returns  of  the 
thought  to  former  utterances.  In  this  it  must  appear  even  to  a 
superficial  reader  of  the  book  that,  with  some  exceptions,  Genung 
is  right. 


32 


ECCLESIASTES 


§  6.      THE   RELATION    OF    "  QOHELETH "    TO    GREEK   THOUGHT. 

There  are  two  regions  in  which  traces  of  Greek  influence  might 
conceivably  be  detected  in  Qoheleth,  viz.: — its  language  and  its 
thought. 

1.  The  contention  of  Zirkel,  Tyler,  Plumtre,  Siegfried  and 
Wildeboer  that  Griecisms  are  to  be  found  in  the  language  of 
Qoheleth,  has  been  ably  answered  by  Delitzsch,  Nowack,  McNeile 
and  others.  Not  more  than  one  such  linguistic  characteristic  can 
be  detected  in  the  book,  and  that  belongs  to  the  language  of  com- 
mon life,  and  might  be  employed  by  anyone  living  in  Palestine 
after  the  Macedonian  conquest. 

In  ch.  i^  the  phrase  r::rn  pn:^  occurs.  It  is  found  also  28  times  else- 
where in  the  book.  Plumtre  and  Wildeboer  (the  latter  hesitatingly) 
regard  it  as=  v(p  17X10;.  Kleinert  and  McNeile  rightly  hold  that  this 
is  unnecessary.  It  alternates  with  D^Drn  rn.-^,  ii^  2^  3^  and  y^nr^  *?;,  gi^-  is 
1 1 2.  The  phrase  also  occurs  in  two  Phoenician  inscriptions  dating 
from  about  300  B.C. — those  of  Tabnith  and  Eshmunazer  (cf.  CIS.,  I,  3 
and  G.  A.  Cooke,  North  Semitic  Inscriptions,  pp.  26,  30).  It  may 
easily  have  been  a  phrase  characteristic  of  the  period  without  any  refer- 
ence to  the  Greeks.  Zirkel's  claim  that  N-inin  the  phrase  pi  ]'y;  Nin  (ch. 
1 13)  corresponds  to  the  Homeric  use  of  the  article  as  a  demonstrative 
pronoun,  has  been  deemed  by  none  of  his  successors  worthy  of  serious 
consideration.  Dina  in  ch.  2«,  although  the  same  as  irapd5ei<Tos,  is  not 
derived  from  it.  Both  are  derived  from  the  Persian  pairi-dieza,  which 
furnished  the  word  to  Semitic-Babylonian,  Aramaic,  Arabic  and  Ar- 
menian as  well.  (See  5DB.)  It  is  also  found  in  Cant.  413  and  Ne. 
2^.  mpc,  ch.  2i^  315  92-  3,  was  by  van  der  Palm  connected  with  av/xcpopi^^ 
but  it  occurs  in  a  kindred  sense  in  i  Sam.  6',  where  no  Greek  influence 
can  be  suspected.  nn>  TN,  ch.  2^^,  Zirkel  renders  en  fidWov,  but  as 
rightly  taken  by  Ginsburg,  Wildeboer  and  McNeile  TN="then,"  "under 
those  circumstances,"  as  in  Jer.  221^.  3ito  nirj',  ch.  312,  is  regarded  by 
Kleinert,  Tyler  and  Siegfried  as  a  literal  translation  of  el  irpdrTeiv.  It 
is  true  that  the  context  excludes  an  ethical  meaning,  and  shows  that  it 
means  "be  prosperous,"  or  "fare  well,"  but  since  npn  r\t";  occurs  in  the 
opposite  meaning  of  "vex  one's  self"  or  "be  in  a  bad  way"  in  2  S. 
12I8,  Greek  influence  is  not  necessary  to  account  for  the  usage.  ""Jii'n  nSvn, 
ch.  415,  was  explained  by  Zirkel  from  the  Greek  phrase  detjrepos  rov 
BaaiXius,  and  by  Delitzsch  and  Wright  from  ^repos  tQv  Mad-qTiov 
(Mt.  821).     Bickell    and    Siegfried,  however,  regard  "^ivn    as    a    gloss. 


RELATION  OF  QOHELETH  TO  GREEK  THOUGHT       ^^ 

If  genuine,  it  is  used  in  a  straightforward  way  to  refer  to  a  second  youth 
who  became  king,     ^dd  3nx,  59,  was  regarded  by  Zirkel  as  =  (piXdpyvpos, 
but  as  McNeile  has  said  one  could  as  well  take  r\T2Dn  Jhn  (Pr.  293)  as  a 
Grfficism=  <pL\6<TO(pos.       rtD'>  nu\s  3")^:,  ch.  5^^  is  taken  by  Graetz,  Plumtre, 
Pfleiderer,  Siegfried  and  Wildeboer  as  a  translation  of  KaXbv  KdyaOdv. 
That,  however,  would  be  ns^i  2rsi.    Del.,  who  is  followed  by  Wr.,  McN., 
K6.  (§§41411,  393a),  pointed  to  a  parallel  in  aiDn  -i>:\s  jy-,  Ho.  is^.    There 
can  be  no  suspicion  of  Greek  influence  in  Hosea.      njj7C,  ch.  519,  has, 
according  to  Zirkel,  the  sense  of  remunerari.     The  use  of  ryy;  in  this 
sense  he  explained  through  the  Gr.  dfiei^eadai,  which  can  mean  both  re- 
munerari and  respondere.      njj;  is,  however,  an  Aramaic  loan  word="to 
occupy"    (BDB.,  see  note);  but  even  if  it  were  from  r\y;,  "answer," 
McN.  points  to  a  parallel  usage  in  i  K.    iS^S   for   which   Greek  in- 
fluence could  not  be  responsible,      li'fjj  nSn,  ch.  6^,  Zirkel  compares  with 
bpfxT]  TTJs  i^vxv^  in  Marc.  Aurelius  315.     If  there'were  influence  here,  it 
must  have  been  from  the  Hebrew  to  the  Greek.     McN.  has  called  at- 
tention to  the  fact  that  Ez.  ii^i  and  Job  31  use  iVn  in  the  same  sense  as 
Qoh.  D*wry>i,  ch.  6*2,  is  the  one  instance  wherein  Zirkel  was  right,  explain- 
ing it  by  the  Greek  iroceTv  xP^^ov.     McN.  would  alter  the  text  to  avoid 
this  explanation,  but  on  the  whole  it  seems  most  probable.     See  notes. 
n^ito  D1>,  ch.  7",  Kleinert  declared  was  connected  with  evrj/j^pla,  but  others, 
even  those  who  hold  to  Grsecisms  in  Qoh.,  regard  it  as  doubtful.    McN. 
pertinently  asks:  "What  other  expression  could  possibly  be  chosen  as  a 
contrast  to  njj-^  dv  ?   dSd  pn  hs^  Zirkel  claims,  is  equal  to  the  Greek  fx^ai/jv 
paSl^eiv,  but  as  Del.  and  others  point  out  n:J^  has  here  the  sense  of  "be 
quit  from"  or  "guiltless  of,"  as  in  Mishna,  Berakoth,  2\  Sabbath,  i«. 
This  is,  then,  not  a  Greek  idiom,  but  NH.    n^r\v  n::  Kleinert  explains  as 
t6  tI  e(TTLv=  "  the  essence  of  the  thing,"  but,  as  McN.  notes,  the  expression 
is  found  in  i'  3'*  6^,  in  all  of  which  such  a  meaning  is  impossible.     It 
means  simply  "that  which  is."     din,  ch.  7^8,  Graetz  takes  as  equal  to 
r>N,  owing  to  the  influence  of  the  Greek  dvOpwiros,  but  as  McN.  notes 
it  is  simply  opposed. to  ni^'X  as  in  Gen.  222-  23.  25  38.  12.  n.  20.  21^  and  does 
not  correspond  to  Greek  usage  at  all.     DJPD,  ch.  8^\  which  Zirkel  takes 
for  the  Gr.  (pd^yfxa  and  others  for  i-n-iTayfia,  is,  as  Delitzsch  pointed  out, 
a  Persian  word;  see  notes.     S^n,  ch.  1213,  Tyler,  who  is  followed  by  Sieg., 
compares  with   the  formula  of  the  Mishna,  SSon  nT="  this  is  the  gen- 
eral rule,"  and  thinks  there  is  "a  pretty  clear  trace  of  the  influence  of 
Greek  philosophical   terminology."      He   compares  rb   KaBbXov  or  rb 
6\ov,  which  in  Plato  is  used  in  the  sense  of  "the  Universal."     Such  a 
view  imports  into  the  phrase  a  meaning  foreign  to  the  context.     The 
word  simply  means  "all,"  and  means  that  either  the  whole  book,  or  all 
that  the  editor  wished  to  say,  has  been  heard.     These  points  are  more 
fully  discussed  by  McNeile,  op.  cit.,  pp.  30-43. 


34  ECCLESIASTES 

^  2.  As  to  the  possibility  that  Qoheleth  was  influenced  by  Greek 
philosophical  thought,  it  can  be  shown  that  there  is  even  less  trace 
in  Qoheleth  of  Greek  philosophical,  than  of  Greek  linguistic,  in- 
fluence. Renan  and  McNeile  are  right  in  thinking  that  everything 
in  Qoheleth  can  be  accounted  for  as  a  development  of  Semitic 
thought,  and  that  the  expressions  which  have  been  seized  upon  to 
prove  that  its  writer  came  under  the  influence  of  Greek  schools 
of  philosophy  only  prove  at  most  that  Qoheleth  was  a  Jew  who  had 
in  him  the  making  of  a  Greek  philosopher.  (C/.  McNeile,  op. 
cit.,  p.  44.) 

Many  attempts  have  been  made  to  prove  the  contrary.  Pflei- 
derer  (C/.  Jahrh'ucher  fur  protestantische  Theologie,  1887,  177-180, 
and  his  Die  Philosophie  des  HerakUt  von  Eph.,nebst  einem/inhang 
liber  heraklitische  Einfliisse  im  alttestamentlichen  Koheleth,  iind 
besonders  im  Buch  der  Weisheit,  1886)  tries  to  show  that  ch.  3^-9 
is  dependent  upon  Heraclitus,  not  only  for  its  thought,  but  for 
many  of  its  expressions;  but  this  view  has  been  justly  discarded 
by  others.  Friedlander  (Griechische  Philosophie  im  alten  Testa- 
ment, 1904)  seeks  to  prove  that  Qoheleth  was  written  in  the 
Greek  period,  assuming  that  in  that  case  Greek  philosophy  in- 
fluenced it.  He  makes  no  specific  argument  for  Jewish  influence 
beyond  the  contention  that  ch.  7'9  (=  Pr.  21^2  24^)  is  an  echo 
of  Euripides.  Sellin  {Spiiren  griechischer  Philosophie  im  alten 
Testament,  1905)  has  answered  him. 

The  attempt  of  Tyler,  which  is  followed  by  Plumtre,  Siegfried, 
and  Haupt,  to  prove  that  Qoheleth  was  influenced  by  the 
Stoics,  deserves  more  serious  attention.  Tyler  (Ecdesiastes, 
p.  11  f-)  finds  in  the  catalogue  of  times  and  seasons  in  ch.  3''  a 
setting  forth  of  the  great  principle  of  Stoic  ethics,  that  one  should 
live  according  to  nature.  He  thinks  that  in  vv.  2-8  we  have  a 
compendious  statement  that  for  every  event  of  human  life  ''Nat- 
ure" has  an  appointed  season.  He  finds  confirmation  of  this  in 
ch.  3>^  where  the  word  "there"  according  to  the  Massoretic  point- 
ing seems  to  him  to  refer  to  nature.  With  reference  to  this  last 
point  it  may  be  observed  that  ch.  3'^  in  all  probability  is  one  of  the 
Chasid  glossator's  interpolations  to  Qoheleth's  work,  and  that  the 
word  "there"  is  a  Massoretic  mistake  (see  Commentary,  ad  loc, 


RELATION  OF  QOHELETH  TO  GREEK  THOUGHT       35 

for  reasons).  The  Stoic  ethics,  too,  which  Tyler  sees  in  ch.  3=  », 
do  not  appear,  on  a  close  examination,  to  be  there.  Qoheleth 
is  not  in  these  verses  expressing  an  ethical  standard,  but  is  rather 
breathing  a  sigh  (see  vv.  9,  11)  over  the  fact  that  all  human  Hfe 
with  its  varied  activities  is  caught  in  the  meshes  of  an  inexorable 
fate.  This  consciousness  of  the  iron  grip  of  fate  Qoheleth  possesses 
in  common  with  the  Stoics,  it  must  be  confessed,  but,  as  Zeller 
(Stoics,  Epicureans  and  Sceptics,  London,  1892,  p.  332  ff.)  per- 
ceived, the  Stoics  did  not  invent  this  conception,  but  shared  it 
with  nearly  all  the  thinkers  of  the  period.  In  an  age  when  first 
the  Persian,  then  the  Macedonian,  and  finally  the  Roman  con- 
querer  quenched  all  over  the  civilized  world  the  torch  of  freedom, 
and  powerful  nations  were  crushed  like  egg-shells,  it  is  no  wonder 
that  the  fact  that  man  is  powerless  before  the  onward  sweep  of 
things  should  have  impressed  the  thoughtful  minds  of  the  time 
regardless  of  nationality.  The  fact  that  this  conception  appears 
in  Qoheleth  is,  therefore,  a  mark  of  date,  rather  than  evidence  of 
Stoic  influence.  Ch.  3^^-^%  upon  which  Tyler  relies  for  confirma- 
tion of  his  argument,  is  obviously  open  to  the  same  explanation. 
The  writer  is  simply  saying:  Man  is  powerless  in  the  presence  of 
God. 

Tyler  then  argues  (op.  cit.,  p.  14^.)  that  the  picture  which  Qo- 
heleth draws  in  ch.  i  of  the  endless  repetitions  of  nature  clearly  be- 
trays the  influence  of  the  Stoic  theory  of  cycles.  Tyler  overlooks, 
however,  the  fact  that  the  differences  between  the  Stoics  and  Qo- 
heleth are  really  greater  than  their  agreements.  Qoheleth  (ch.  i^  -") 
alludes  only  to  the  fact  that  the  generations  of  men,  the  sun,  the 
winds,  the  rivers,  and  all  human  affairs,  run  again  and  again  the 
same  course.  He  betrays  no  consciousness  of  the  Stoic  theory  of 
larger  world-cycles,  at  the  end  of  which  everything  would  be  de- 
stroyed by  flood  or  fire  only  to  be  recreated  and  to  start  upon  a  new 
world-course,  in  which  every  detail  of  its  former  history  would  be 
repeated.  (See  Zeller,  op.  cit.,  ch.  viii.)  Indeed,  it  is  clear  that 
Qoheleth  did  not  hold  this  view,  for  his  constant  plaint  is  that  "man 
cannot  find  out  what  will  be  after  him,"  or  "know  what  God  hath 
done  from  the  beginning  to  the  end"  (cf.  3^^  6'^  yi4  ^s),  Qq- 
heleth's  confession  of  ignorance  is  in  striking  contrast  to  the  dog- 


36  ECCLESIASTES 

matic  certainty  of  the  Stoics.  When  one  notes  these  contrasts,  it 
is  hardly  possible  longer  to  maintain  that  Qoheleth  betrays  in  ch.  i 
any  Stoic  influence.  He  appears  rather  as  an  ^icute  observer  of 
life,  whose  bitter  experiences  have  led  him  to  look  beneath  the  sur- 
face, and  who  has  thus  become  conscious  of  the  seemingly  futile 
repetitions  of  life,  and  whose  thirst  for  knowledge  of  life's  mystery 
refuses,  though  baffled,  to  be  satisfied  by  dogmatism. 

Tyler  further  urges  {op.  cit.,  T-Sff-)  that  Qoheleth's  oft  repeated 
dictum  "all  is  vanity"  is  best  explained  by  Stoic  influence,  because 
Marcus  Aurelius  declares  that  "worldly  things  are  but  as  smoke, 
as  very  nothingness."  On  any  theory  of  the  date  of  Ecclesiastes, 
however,  it  might  with  greater  plausibility  be  urged  that  the  stream 
of  influence,  if  influence  there  was,  was  in  the  other  direction. 
The  coincideijce  that  both  Qoheleth  and  the  Stoics  regarded  folly  • 
as  madness  is  also  to  Tyler  an  argument  for  his  theory.  If,  how- 
ever, his  other  arguments  are  invalid,  this  fact  can  be  regarded  as 
no  more  than  a  coincidence. 

Not  only  do  these  alleged  evidences  of  Stoic  influence  appear  to 
be  unreal,  but  on  many  other  points  the  positions  of  Qoheleth  and 
the  Stoics  are  in  such  striking  contrast  as  to  render  the  theory  of 
Stoic  influence  most  improbable.  The  Stoics  were  materialists, 
and  most  dogmatic  in  their  materialism  (Zeller,  op.  cit.,  ch.  vi), 
but  there  is  no  trace  in  Ecclesiastes  either  of  their  materialism  or 
their  dogmatism.  The  Stoics  regarded  God  as  pure  reason,  and 
were  as  positive  and  dogmatic  about  the  divine  nature  as  about 
the  universe;  Qoheleth,  on  the  other  hand,  regarded  both  God  and 
his  works  as  unknowable.  God  is  infinitely  above  man  (r/.  52), 
and  even  what  he  does  man  cannot  hope  to  understand  {cf.  11*). 
The  Stoics  thought  they  understood  how  the  soul  was  formed  in 
the  unborn  child,  (Zeller,  op.  cit.,  pp.  212-213);  Qoheleth,  on 
the  other  hand,  declared  that  the  formation  even  of  the  bones 
of  the  unborn  infant  was  a  mystery  the  secret  of  which  is  undis- 
coverable  (ch.  8^^  11*).  There  is  a  great  contrast,  too,  between 
the  idea  of  good  as  presented  by  Qoheleth  and  the  Stoics  respec- 
tively. To  Qoheleth  there  is  no  absolute  good.  A  good  is  a 
relative  thing;  it  consists  of  the  satisfaction  of  the  animal  appetites 
during  the  period  of  life  when  such  satisfaction  gives  enjoyment. 


RELATION  OF  QOHELETH  TO  GREEK  THOUGHT       37 

It  has  no  absolute  value,  but  there  is  in  life  nothing  better  {cf. 
ch.  2^^  3'2  13  518. 19  97-10  1 1 9..  10).  Xo  the  Stoics,  on  the  contrary, 
nothing  could  be  considered  a  good  which  did  not  have  an  abso- 
lute value.  (Zeller,  op.  cit.,  pp.  231-233.)  A  similar  contrast 
exists  between  Qoheleth's  idea  of  the  relative  position  of  wise 
and  foolish  men  and  that  entertained  by  the  Stoics.  Qoheleth 
has  an  innate  liking  for  wisdom;  he  admires  it,  and  at  times 
follows  it  (ch.  I '3  725-^116  ^16^^  but,  on  the  other  hand,  he  cannot  rid 
himself  of  the  feeling  that  the  wise  man  toils  in  vain  (g'^),  that  his 
labor  is  a  fruitless  endeavor,  and  that  a  foetus  born  dead  is  in  re- 
ality happier  than  the  wise  mhn  (ch.  6^^-^).  It  is  true  that  in 
another  mood  he  declares  that  it  is  better  to  know  that  one  will 
die  than  to  know  nothing  (ch.  9^);  but  on  the  whole  Qoheleth's 
verdict  is  that  wisdom,  like  all  other  things  mundane,  is  vanity. 
The  wise  man  has  no  real  advantage,  except  that  he  suffers  what 
he  suffers  with  his  eyes  open;  in  the  end  he  dies  like  the  fool,  and 
goes  to  the  same  place  (cf.  g^^).  The  Stoics,  on  the  other  hand, 
regarded  the  wise  man  as  the  only  perfect  man,  free  from  passion 
and  want  and  absolutely  happy,  falling  short  in  no  respect  of  the 
happiness  of  Zeus.     (Zeller.  op.  cit..  pp.  270-271.) 

Again,  the  Stoics  made  distinctions  between  degrees  of  goodness. 
Virtue  was  an  absolute  good;  other  goods  were  secondary,  and 
certain  things  were  indifferent.  (Zeller,  op.  cit.,  ch.  XI.)  Of 
such  distinctions  we  find  no  trace  in  Ecclesiastes.  The  one  kind 
of  good  which  he  knows  is  to  eat  and  drink  and  enjoy  the  full 
round  of  physical  life  while  it  lasts.  This  is  not  an  absolute  good 
— Qoheleth  know^s  none — but  it  is  to  him  the  only  good  within  the 
reach  of  man.  The  Stoics  also  developed  theories  of  applied 
morals,  in  which  poHtical  theories  and  the  duties  of  the  individual 
were  set  forth.  These  culminated  in  the  Roman  period  in  the 
conception  of  a  citizenship  of  the  world.  (Zeller,  op.  cit.,  ch. 
XII.)  None  of  these  ideas  finds  expression  in  Qoheleth,  though 
it  would,  of  course,  be  unfair  to  look  for  some  of  them,  as  they  were 
later  developments  of  Stoicism.  The  Stoics,  too,  were  great  alle- 
gorizers  (cf.  Zeller,  op.  cit.,  p.  355^.),  and  made  much  of  divina- 
tion (cf.  Zeller,  op.  cit.,  p.  370  ff.),  traces  of  neither  of  which 
appear  anywhere  in  Ecclesiastes. 


38  ECCLESIASTES 

Upon  a  candid  comparison  of  the  thought  of  Ecclesiastes,  then, 
with  the  philosophy  of  the  Stoics,  t1ie  supposed  dependence  of  the 
one  on  the  other  turns  out  to  be  unreal.  The  resemblances  are 
not  really  likenesses  but  surface  coincidences,  and  the  differences 
are  fundamental. 

Tyler  {pp.  cit.,  iSff.)  endeavors  to  show  that  Qoheleth  also  ex- 
hibits traces  of  Epicurean  thought.  In  this  argument  he  relies 
mainly  upon  two  passages:  31 8-22  and  518-20.  xhe  former  of 
these  teaches,  he  holds,  the  Epicurean  doctrine  of  the  mortality 
of  the  soul,  and  the  latter  the  Epicurean  doctrine  of  pleas- 
ure, or  tranquillity,  as  the  essential  principle  of  life.  With  refer- 
ence to  the  first  of  these  points  it  should  be  noted  that  Qoheleth's 
denial  of  immortality  differs  from  the  Epicurean  denial.  His  is 
but  a  passing  doubt:  it  is  not  dogmatically  expressed,  and  at  the  end 
(12^)  his  doubt  has  vanished  and  he  reasserts  the  older  Jewish 
view  (Gn.  2^).  This  older  view  was  not  an  assertion  of  im- 
mortality, but  the  primitive  conception  that  the  breath  comes 
from  God  and  goes  back  to  him.  The  Epicureans,  on  the  other 
hand,  dogmatically  argued  for  the  non-immortality  of  the  soul, 
and  possessed  well-assured  theories  about  it.  (Cf.  Zeller,  op.  cit., 
pp.  453-456.)  As  to  Tyler's  second  point,  it  will  be  presently 
shown  that  this  is  a  Semitic  point  of  view  older  than  Epicurus 
by  many  centuries. 

Siegfried  confesses  that  neither  thorough-going  Stoicism  nor 
Epicureanism  can  be  found  in  the  book,  but  he,  nevertheless, 
distinguishes  two  authors  in  the  book,  the  one  of  whom  shows,  he 
thinks,  kinship  to  the  Stoics,  and  the  other  to  the  Epicureans. 

Haupt,  on  the  other  hand,  believes  that  the  original  Qoheleth 
was  strongly  imbued  with  the  Epicurean  philoso[)hy.  He  says 
{The  Book  of  Ecclesiastes,  1905,  p.  6),  "Like  Epicurus  (341-270 
B.C.),  Ecclesiastes  commends  companionship  (4^),  and  cheerful- 
ness (9^),  but  also  contentment  (6''),  and  moderation  in  sensual 
pleasures  to  avoid  painful  consequences  (11'°).  He  warns  against 
wrong-doing,  since  it  entails  punishment  (7^^,  5^).  He  does  not 
deny  the  existence  of  God  (52),  but  he  disbelieves  a  moral  order 
of  the  universe:  divine  influence  on  this  world  where  there  is  so 
much  imperfection  and  evil  seems  to  him  impossible.     In  the 


RELATION  OF  QOHELETH  TO  GREEK  THOUGHT      39 

same  way  he  doubts  the  immortalLty  of  the  soul  (s^^);  death  ends 
all  consciousness  (9'").  He  by  no  means  commends  nothing  but 
eating  and  drinking  and  pleasure  {S^=  2 2^  51 8,  cf.  y^);  he  also 
preaches  the  gospel  of  work  (3-29'°)." 

The  part  of  this  argument  which  relates  to  immortality  has 
already  been  considered.  Unfortunately  for  the  Epicurean  theory, 
an  old  Babylonian  parallel  to  Eccl.  9^-^ — a  parallel  which  contains 
the  heart  of  this  supposed  Epicurean  philosophy — has  been  dis- 
covered. It  occurs  in  a  fragment  of  the  Gilgamesh  epic  found 
on  a  tablet  written  in  the  script  of  the  Hammurabi  dynasty  (about 
2000  B.C.),  and  was  published  by  Meissner  in  the  Mitteilimgen 
der  Vorderasiatischen  Gesellschaft,  1902,  Heft  i.  On  p.  8,  col. 
iii,  1.  3,  we  read: 

CINCE  the  gods  created  man, 
Death  they  ordained  for  man, 
Life  in  their  hands  they  hold, 
Thou,  O  Gilgamesh,  fill  indeed  thy  belly, 
Day  and  night  be  thou  joyful. 
Daily  ordain  gladness. 
Day  and  night  rage  and  make  merry, 
Let  thy  garments  be  bright. 
Thy  head  purify,  wash  with  water, 
Desire  thy  children  which  thy  hand  possesses, 
A  wife  enjoy  in  thy  bosom, 
Peaceably  thy  work  (?)... 

As  Hubert  Grimme  pointed  out  (Qrientalische  Literaturzeitung, 
Vol.  VIII,  col.  432^.),  this  is  a  most  striking  parallel  to  Eccl.  98-9. 

Also  their  (the  dead's)  love  as  well  as  their  hate  and  their  jealousy 
have  already  perished,  and  they  have  again  no  portion  in  all  that  is 
done  under  the  siin.  Come  eat  thy  bread  with  joy  and  drink  thy  wine 
with  a  glad  heart,  for  already  God  hath  accepted  thy  works.  At  all 
times  let  thy  garments  be  white,  and  let  not  oil  be  lacking  on  thy  head. 
Enjoy  life  with  a  woman  whom  thou  lovest  all  the  days  of  thy  vain  life 
which  he  gives  thee  under  the  sun,  for  it  is  thy  lot  in  life  and  thy  toil  which 
thou  toilest  under  the  sun. 

These  passages  are  not  only  strikingly  similar,  but  in  parts  the 
Hebrew  seems  to  be  a  translation  of  the  Babylonian  (see  Com- 


40  ECCLESIASTES 

mentary).  The  existence  of  the  influential  Jewish  colony  called 
the  "Goiiliouth^^  in  Babylonia  and  its  great  influence  on  the  Jew^ 
of  Palestine  is  well  known.  There  can  be  little  doubt  that  it  was 
through  this  channel  that  this  Babylonian  philosophy  of  life  be- 
came known  to  Qoheleth  and  influenced  him. 

This  old  Babylonian  philosophy,  too,  it  should  be  noted,  con- 
tains the  heart  of  all  that  has  been  considered  Epicurean  in 
Qoheleth.  The  eating  and  drinking,  the  enjoyment  of  one's  labor, 
the  cheerfulness,  the  dehght  in  pleasure,  the  feeling  that  death 
ends  all — all  these  are  contained  in  it.  The  script  in  which  it  is 
written  attests  the  existence  of  these  sentiments  as  early  as  2000 
B.C.,  at  a  time  when  there  is  no  reason  to  doubt  that  they  are 
a  product  of  purely  Semitic  thought.  Qoheleth  was,  in  all  prob- 
ability, acquainted  with  the  Babylonian  poem.  It  is  not  likely  that 
his  whole  point  of  view  came  from  Babylonia,  but  he  adopted  the 
sentiment  of  the  poem,  because  it  expressed  a  point  of  view  which 
he  had  himself  reached,  while  his  own  thought  was  made  possible 
by  some  phases  of  Jewish  thought  in  the  particular  period  when 
he  lived.  Semitic  thought  in  Babylonia  had,  almost  two  millennia 
before  Qoheleth,  traversed  the  cycle  which  Jewish  thought  was 
in  his  person  treading. 

The  point  of  immediate  interest  is  that  the  discovery  of  this 
parallelism  effectually  disposes  of  the  theory  that  Qoheleth  was 
indebted  to  the  thought  of  Epicurus.  Epicurean  influence  was 
exceedingly  problematical  even  before  this  discovery,  for  Epicu- 
reanism was  in  its  way  as  dogmatic  and  austere  as  Stoicism. 
Qoheleth  betrays  no  trace  of  the  Epicurean  dogma  that  all 
knowledge  comes  from  sensation,  no  trace  of  Epicurean  canonic, 
or  natural  science,  or  theology,  or  morals.  Such  likenesses  as 
may  be  discovered  are  cast  in  a  thoroughly  Semitic  mould  of 
thought,  and  are  mere  coincidences.  It  may,  of  course,  be  urged 
that  it  would  not  be  necessary  for  Qoheleth  to  adopt  the  peculiarly 
Greek  characteristics  of  either  Stoicism  or  Epicureanism  in  order 
to  be  influenced  by  some  of  the  fundamental  conceptions  of  these 
systems;  but  it  may  be  said  in  reply  that  no  Hebrew  could  probably 
be  influenced  by  them  without  adopting  on  some  points  their 
peculiar   methods   or  dogmatism.     St.    Paul,  Philo,  and    Justin 


RELATION  OF  QOIIELETH  TO  GREEK  THOUGHT      41 

Martyr,  for  example,  adopted  the  allegorizing  method,  and  prob- 
ably Qoheleth  would  betray  some  non-Semitic  trait  were  such 
influence  real. 

McNeile  {Ecclesiastes,  pp.  44  ff.)  has  pointed  out  that  Zeno, 
the  founder  of  Stoicism,  was  of  Phoenician  stock,  and  that,  though 
Ecclesiastes  contains  some  of  the  seed-thoughts  of  Stoicism,  it 
only  means  that  another  Semite  under  the  influences  of  the  same 
period  in  the  world's  history  developed  under  a  somewhat  different 
environment  some  of  the  same  ideas.  Our  present  knowledge 
makes  it  possible  to  contend  concerning  the  resemblances  between 
Qoheleth  and  Epicurus,  not  that  the  former  borrowed  from  the 
latter,  but  that  Epicurus  was  indebted  for  his  seed-thought  to 
Qoheleth's  great  forerunner,  the  Babylonian  poet,  and  that  this 
thought  he  worked  up  metaphysically  and  dogmatically,  thus  giving 
it  a  setting  in  accordance  with  the  prevailing  genius  of  the  Greek 
philosophy  of  the  period.  In  favor  of  such  a  thesis  a  strong  argu- 
ment could  be  made  without  harboring  any  of  the  extravagant 
fancies  of  the  contemporary  pan-Babylonian  school  of  Germany, 
but  the  problem  belongs  rather  to  the  history  of  Greek  philosophy 
than  to  a  commentary  on  Ecclesiastes. 

For  full  descriptions  of  the  teachings  and  influence  of  Epicurus, 
see  Zeller,  Stoics,  Epicureans,  and  Skeptics,  London,  1892;  Wallace, 
Epicureanism,  London,  1880;  and  Guyan,  La  Morale  d'Epicure, 
Paris,  1878.  The  name  Epicurus  appears  in  the  Talmud  as  Apikoros. 
It  is  equivalent  to  "free-thinker'  and  is  used  in  a  way  which  shows  that 
the  writers  of  the  Talmud  had  only  the  vaguest  notions  of  his  philosophy. 
Cf.  Jewish  Encyc.  I,  665^. 

The  fact  that  the  Babylonian  influence  reached  some  Greek 
philosophical  thinkers  has  been  made  evident  by  the  discovery  that  the 
mystic  number  of  Plato's  Republic,  Book  viii,  is  of  Babylonian  origin. 
This  was  first  shown  by  Aures,  Recueil  de  Travaux,  XV,  69-80,  who, 
after  examining  the  interpretations  which  Le  Clerc  in  18 19,  Vincent 
in  1839,  Martin  in  1857,  and  Tannery  in  1870,  had  put  upon  Plato's 
language,  finally  adopted  the  explanation  of  Dupuis  (1881)  that  the 
number  was  21,600  and  claimed  that  in  the  mathematical  tablet  of 
Senkereh  this  number  represented  6  shars=;^o  US.  =  i  kasbu.  James 
Adam,  in  his  Republic  of  Plato,  Cambridge,  1902,  Vol.  II,  p.  206  ff., 
argued  with  great  acuteness  that  the  number  contemplated  by  Plato 
was   12,960,000.     The  factors  of  this  number  Hilprecht   {Babylonian 


42  ECCLESIASTES 

Expedition  of  the  University  0}  Pennsylvania,  Series  A,  Vol.  XX,  Pt.  i) 
found  on  Babylonian  exercise  tablets  in  such  a  way  as  to  show  that  it 
was. regarded  by  the  Babylonians  as  a  mystic  number.  He  holds  this 
to  be  a  confirmation  of  Adam's  calculation  and  also  of  the  Babylonian 
origin  of  the  numbers.  Even  Georg  Albert  admits  {Die  Platonische 
ZaJil  als  Prdzessionszahl,  Leipzig  and  Wien,  1907),  that  the  Babylonian 
origin  is  demonstrated,  although  he  differs  from  Dupuis  and  Adam  in 
the  interpretation  of  the  Greek,  reiterating  a  view  which  he  set  forth  in 
1896  {Die  Platonische  Zahl)  that  the  number  intended  is  2592,  one  of 
the  factors  of  12,960,000,  and  referred  to  the  procession  of  the  equinoxes. 

Epicurus  lived  through  the  period  of  the  conquests  of  Alexander 
the  Great.  He  began  teaching  in  Athens  in  the  year  306  B.C.,  seventeen 
years  after  the  death  of  Alexander,  at  a  time  when  the  channels  through 
which  Babylonian  influences  might  pour  into  Greece  were  all  open. 

It  is  scarcely  necessary  to  refute  Dillon's  statement  that  Qoheleth 
was  influenced  by  Buddhism  (see  above,  p.  27).  Dillon  supports  his 
statement  by  no  extended  argument,  and  it  seems  clear  that  such  par- 
allels between  Ecclesiastes  and  Buddhistic  teaching  as  might  be  cited 
are  in  all  probability  due  to  independent,  though  parallel,  develop- 
ments of  thought. 


The  fact  is,  as  Edward  Caird  {Lectures  on  the  Evolution  of  Re- 
ligion; Vol.  I,  ch.  vii,  X,  xiii,  xiv)  observed,  that  in  various  centres 
positive  and  theoretical  religions  have  been  developed  out  of  prim- 
itive nature  religions,  and  that  wherever  this  has  been  the  case,  a 
similar  course  of  evolution,  independent  though  parallel,  may  be 
observed.  The  instances  noted  by  Caird  are  Buddhism,  Judaism, 
and  Stoicism.  That  the  primitive,  and,  Lo  some  extent,  the  pro- 
phetic conceptions  of  religion  were  to  Israel's  thinking  minds  prov- 
ing inadequate,  even  before  Qoheleth,  the  Book  of  Job  attests. 
McNeile  {op.  cit.,  p.  44/".)  has  already  made  good  use  of  Caird's 
principle  in  showing  that  Qoheleth  represents  a  stage  in  the  de- 
velopment of  Jewish  religious  thought  parallel  in  some  respects  to 
Stoicism,  though  independent  of  it. 

The  principle  may  be  applied  with  justice,  though  in  a  less  ex- 
tended way,  to  the  likenesses  between  Ecclesiastes  and  Epicurus. 
Where  primitive  types  of  religious  conception  were  beginning  to 
be  regarded  as  inadequate,  it  was  natural  for  men  to  find  a  kind 
of  satisfaction  for  a  time  in  the  effort  to  make  the  most  out  of  the 
present  life  and  its  temporary  pleasures.     We  have  already  seen 


THE   INTEGRITY   OF   ECCLESIASTES  43 

"~'^"^"' ^^""^niigh  this  phase,  and  Herodotus 


not  invent  the  conccpLiv^xx  ^^  ^ 

place  of  dismal  half-consciousness.  It  is  the  old  Semitic  cunu^^^ 
tion,set  forth  in  the  Babylonian  poem  of  I shtaf  s  Descent  (KB.,  VI), 
and  in  the  OT.  in  Is.  14^^  Ez.  32i»-3i,  and  is  even  reiterated  by 
some  late  Psalmists  {cf.  Ps.  881 "  ii5^0-  Qoheleth's  point  of 
view  is  a  natural  evolution,  therefore,  from  Israel's  earlier  thought 
— as  natural  as  that  which  took  place  in  Babylonia  or  in  Egypt. 
The  evolution  of  thought  in  Greece  may  as  naturally  have  produced 
Epicurus.  If  either  Qoheleth  or  Epicurus  was  in  any  way  in- 
debted to  the  Babylonian  poet,  it  was  because  the  development  of 
thought  in  their  respective  countries  made  his  conceptions  of  life 
welcome  to  many  Hebrew  and  Greek  minds. 

The  book  of  Ecclesiastes  represents,  then,  an  original  develop- 
ment of  Hebrew  thought,  thoroughly  Semitic  in  its  point  of  view, 
and  quite  independent  of  Greek  influences. 

McNeile  has  pointed  out  {Ecclesiastes,  pp.  45  ff.,  50  ff.)  that  more 
real  affinity  of  thought  exists  between  Qoheleth  and  Xenophanes  of 
Colophon,  or  Qoheleth  and  Pyrrho  and  the  Sceptics,  than  between  _ 
Qoheleth  and  the  Stoics.  McNeile,  however,  rightly  declares  that  no 
contact  on  the  part  of  Qoheleth  with  either  of  these  philosophies  can 
be  maintained.  The  Sceptics  were  in  their  way  as  dogmatic  and  as 
Greek  as  the  Stoics  or  Epicureans  {cf.  Zeller,  op.  cit.,  514-563),  while 
Qoheleth  is  thoroughly  Semitic. 

§7.      THE   INTEGRITY   OF    ECCLESIASTES. 

It  is  clear  from  what  has  been  said  in  §5  that  the  most  diverse 
opinions  upon  this  point  exist  among  scholars.  Cornill  and  Ge- 
nung,  on  the  one  hand,  maintaining  vigorously  the  entire  unity 


ERRATUM. 
P-  4a,  line  7,  read  "possible"  instead  of  "demonstrated. 


the  factors  ot  12,900,000,  anu  renmrca  ixrxtx^  ^^..^^^ 

Epicurus  lived  through  the  period  of  the  conquests  of  Alexander 
the  Great.  He  began  teaching  in  Athens  in  the  year  306  B.C.,  seventeen 
years  after  the  death  of  Alexander,  at  a  time  v^'hen  the  channels  through 
which  Babylonian  influences  might  pour  into  Greece  were  all  open. 

It  is  scarcely  necessary  to  refute  Dillon's  statement  that  Qoheleth 
was  influenced  by  Buddhism  (see  above,  p.  27).  Dillon  supports  his 
statement  by  no  extended  argument,  and  it  seems  clear  that  such  par- 
allels between  Ecclesiastes  and  Buddhistic  teaching  as  might  be  cited 
are  in  all  probability  due  to  independent,  though  parallel,  develop- 
ments of  thought. 

• 
The  fact  is,  as  Edward  Caird  (Lectures  on  the  Evolution  of  Re- 
ligion) Vol.  I,  ch.  vii,  X,  xiii,  xiv)  observed,  that  in  various  centres 
positive  and  theoretical  religions  have  been  developed  out  of  prim- 
itive nature  religions,  and  that  wherever  this  has  been  the  case,  a 
similar  course  of  evolution,  independent  though  parallel,  may  be 
observed.  The  instances  noted  by  Caird  are  Buddhism,  Judaism, 
and  Stoicism.  That  the  primitive,  and,  to  some  extent,  the  pro- 
phetic conceptions  of  religion  were  to  Israel's  thinking  minds  prov- 
ing inadequate,  even  before  Qoheleth,  the  Book  of  Job  attests. 
McNeile  {op.  cit.,  p.  44  jf.)  has  already  made  good  use  of  Caird's 
principle  in  showing  that  Qoheleth  represents  a  stage  in  the  de- 
velopment of  Jewish  reHgious  thought  parallel  in  some  respects  to 
Stoicism,  though  independent  of  it. 

The  principle  may  be  applied  with  justice,  though  in  a  less  ex- 
tended way,  to  the  likenesses  between  Ecclesiastes  and  Epicurus. 
\\Tiere  primitive  types  of  religious  conception  were  beginning  to 
be  regarded  as  inadequate,  it  was  natural  for  men  to  find  a  kind 
of  satisfaction  for  a  time  in  the  effort  to  make  the  most  out  of  the 
present  life  and  its  temporary  pleasures.     We  have  already  seen 


THE   INTEGRITY   OF   ECCLESIASTES  43 

how  Babylonian  thought  passed  through  this  phase,  and  Herodotus 
tells  us  (Bk.  2'»)  that  Egyptian  thought  passed  through  a  similar 
phase,  which  gave  birth  to  the  custom  of  carrying  a  mummy 
around  the  table  at  a  feast  and  exhorting  each  guest  to  make  the 
most  of  his  opportunity,  for  one  day  he  would,  like  the  mummy, 
be  unable  to  participate  in  such  joys.  This  point  of  view  is  also 
exhibited  in  native  Egyptian  poetry.  See  W.  Max  Miiller's 
Liehespoesie  der  alten  Agypter,  30-35. 

Qoheleth  represents  such  a  stage  in  Hebrew  thought.  He  did 
not  invent  the  conception  of  Sheol,  which  appears  in  his  book,  as  a 
place  of  dismal  half-consciousness.  It  is  the  old  Semitic  concep- 
tion, set  forth  in  the  Babylonian  poem  of  I shtar's Descent  (KB.,  VI), 
and  in  the  OT.  in  Is.  14'^  Ez.  32' ^-^i,  and  is  even  reiterated  by 
some  late  Psalmists  {cf.  Ps.  SS^"  nS")-  Qoheleth's  point  of 
view  is  a  natural  evolution,  therefore,  from  Israel's  earlier  thought 
— as  natural  as  that  w^hich  took  place  in  Babylonia  or  in  Egypt. 
The  evolution  of  thought  in  Greece  may  as  naturally  have  produced 
Epicurus.  If  either  Qoheleth  or  Epicurus  was  in  any  way  in- 
debted to  the  Babylonian  poet,  it  was  because  the  development  of 
thought  in  their  respective  countries  made  his  conceptions  of  life 
welcome  to  many  Hebrew  and  Greek  minds. 

The  book  of  Ecclesiastes  represents,  then,  an  original  develop- 
ment of  Hebrew  thought,  thoroughly  Semitic  in  its  point  of  view, 
and  quite  independent  of  Greek  mfluences. 

McNeile  has  pointed  out  (Ecclesiastes,  pp.  45  ff.,  50  ff.)  that  more 
real  affinity  of  thought  exists  between  Qoheleth  and  Xenophanes  of 
Colophon,  or  Qoheleth  and  Pyrrho  and  the  Sceptics,  than  between 
Qoheleth  and  the  Stoics.  McNeile,  however,  rightly  declares  that  no 
contact  on  the  part  of  Qoheleth  with  either  of  these  philosophies  can 
be  maintained.  The  Sceptics  were  in  their  way  as  dogmatic  and  as 
Greek  as  the  Stoics  or  Epicureans  (cf.  Zeller,  op.  ciL,  514-563),  while 
Qoheleth  is  thoroughly  Semitic. 

§7.      THE   INTEGRITY   OF    ECCLESIASTES. 

It  is  clear  from  what  has  been  said  in  §5  that  the  most  diverse 
opinions  upon  this  point  exist  among  scholars.  Cornill  and  Ge- 
nung,  on  the  one  hand,  maintaining  vigorously  the  entire  unity 


44 


ECCLESIASTES 


of  the  work  as  it  stands  (Cornill  counting  the  work  one  of  the 
greatest  triumphs  of  Hebrew  faith),  while  Siegfried  and  Haupt, 
at  the  other  extreme,  regard  the  book  as  the  product  of  so  many 
hands  that  its  original  features  are  entirely  obscured.  The  truth 
will  be  found  to  lie  somewhere  between  these  two  extremes,  and 
somewhat  nearer  the  former  than  the  latter. 

The  title,  ch.  i',  "The  words  of  Qoheleth,  son  of  David,  king 
in  Jerusalem,"  may  readily  be  granted  without  controversy  to  be 
the  work  of  an  editor.  The  analogy  of  the  titles  to  the  prophetic 
books  makes  this  probable.  To  this  same  editor  we  probably 
owe  the  words  *' says  Qoheleth"  in  i^  727  and  i2».  The  writer 
of  the  book  usually  speaks  of  himself  in  the  first  person  (see  i^^^ 
21.  13.  18  012.  16  ^1.  4.  7  ris  6^  7^^-  ^*-  ^®  S'"-  '*  Q'-  ^^-  ''  10*).  The 
words  "says  Qoheleth"  interrupt  the  rhythm  in  i^  and  i2»,  while 
in  7"  they  actually  interrupt  a  discourse  in  the  first  person;  we 
conclude,  therefore,  that  they  are  probably  editorial.  Further, 
ch.  12^  1",  w^hich  speaks  of  Qoheleth  in  the  third  person  and  praises 
his  work,  is,  as  a  number  of  recent  interpreters  have  seen,  doubtless 
the  work  of  the  editor  also.  Ch.  1211-  ^^^  which  praises  the  work  of 
Israel's  wise  men  in  general,  and  utters  a  warning  against  reading 
other  books  (i.e.,  probably  books  outside  the  OT.  canon),  is 
also  from  the  hand  of  an  editor  or  glossator.  McNeile  assigns  it 
to  the  Hokma  glossator,  but  it  seems  to  me  probable  that  the  two 
are  really  one.  I  can  see  no  reason  for  calling  in  the  aid  of 
another  writer  at  this  point.  To  these  we  must  add  the  words, 
"End  of  discourse  all  has  been  heard,"  at  the  beginning  of  i2'«, 
which  marked  the  conclusion  of  the  book  as  the  Hokma  editor 
left  it.     (For  reasons,  see  crit.  note  on  1213). 

If  now  we  remove  these  editorial  words  and  sentences,  is  the 
rest  of  the  book  a  unity?  Are  there  any  utterances  so  contradic- 
tory that  they  could  not  have  been  uttered  by  the  same  mind  ?  In 
answer  we  must  examine  the  book.  Through  the  first  two  chap- 
ters the  thought  flows  on  connectedly,  as  most  interpreters  have 
recognized,  until  we  come  to  2"-^,  when  we  suddenly  come  upon  a 
sentiment  which  is  in  direct  contradiction  to  most  of  the  statements 
which  have  preceded  it  in  the  chapter,  and  which  contains  the  or- 
thodox Jewirh  doctrine  of  rewards  and  punishments.     It  is  incon- 


THE   INTEGRITY   OF   ECCLESIASTES  45 

ceivable  that  a  writer  should  say  in  the  same  chapter,  that  the  wise 
man  and  the  fool  have  the  same  fate  (2^^-  >«)  and  that  there  is  no 
good  but  eating  and  drinking  and  enjoying  one's  self  (22"),  and 
also  say  that  God  punishes  the  sinner  and  rewards  the  good  {2^^). 
We  accordingly  are  compelled  to  conclude  that  2^6  comes  from  the 
hand  of  a  Chasid  or  Jewish  orthodox  glossator,  whose  philosophy 
of  life  was  that  of  the  Pharisees. 

Did  this  glossator  add  any  other  passages  to  the  book  ?  If  we 
find  any  similar  sentiments  which  interrupt  and  contradict  their 
context,  we  must  conclude  that  he  did.  McNeile  holds  that  ch. 
31^'^,  "God  hath  done  it  that  men  may  fear  before  him,"  is  such  a 
gloss,  but  in  this  he  seems  to  me  mistaken.  That  the  mysterious 
and  inexplicable  being  whom  Qoheleth  considered  God  to  be 
should  wish  men  to  fear  before  him,  is  as  consonant  to  the  thought 
of  Qoheleth,  as  in  a  different  sense  to  that  of  the  Chasid.  Senti- 
ments similar  to  those  of  ch.  2'^^  are,  however,  found  in  y  yi^^- 
26b.  29  82b.  3a.  5.  6a.  11-13  j j 9b  12^'"-  ^^  (from  thc  words  "fear  God") 
and  ".  All  these  breathe  the  same  sentiments  and  either 
interrupt  or  contradict  the  chief  teachings  of  the  book,  and  in 
most  cases  do  both.  As  the  last  of  these  glosses  forms  the  conclu- 
sion of  the  book,  coming  after  the  concluding  words  of  the  editor, 
we  conclude  that  the  Chasid  glossator's  was  the  last  hand  to  anno- 
tate Ecclesiastes  as  it  stands  in  our  canon.  To  the  Chasid  glosses 
thus  enumerated,  McNeile  would  add  5^ -^  the  passage  on  rash 
vows.  I  see  no  reason,  however,  why  the  whole  of  this  passage, 
except  the  two  allusions  to  dreams,  may  not  belong  to  Qoheleth. 
His  views  did  not  exclude  the  worship  of  God  altogether,  and  they 
would  naturally  lead  him  to  denounce  sham  and  insincerity  in  re- 
ligion. The  only  real  argument  against  the  genuineness  of  this 
section  is  that  it  interrupts  Qoheleth's  reflections  on  political  affairs, 
to  which  the  preceding  and  following  sections  are  devoted.  No 
ancient  Jew,  however  (except  possibly  the  Priestly  Writers  in  the 
Pentateuch),  least  of  all  Qoheleth,  is  sufficiently  systematic  in  the 
arrangement  of  his  sections,  so  that  this  argument  can  really  be  of 
weight  where,  as  here,  not  a  single  verse  but  a  whole  section  inter- 
venes, and  that  section  is  not  on  the  whole  out  of  harmony  with 
Qoheleth's  position.     Vv.  3  and  7%  however,  interrupt  Qoheleth's 


46  ECCLESIASTES 

thought,  and  are  cast  more  in  the  form  of  the  mashal  proverbs.  We 
conclude,  therefore,  that  they  were  introduced  by  some  writer  who 
was  especially  interested  in  wisdom  sayings  cast  in  a  poetic  form. 

We  must  next  inquire  whether  there  may  not  be  other  proverbial 
sayings  in  Ecclesiastes  which  so  interrupt  the  argument  of  the 
book  as  to  make  it  impossible  that  they  should  have  been  inserted 
bv  Qoheleth  himself.  A  careful  study  of  the  work  convinces  us 
that  there  are,  and  that  the  following  passages  are  such  wisdom  or 
Hokma  glosses:  4^  s''  ''"  V'  *"  ^'  ^'''  ""  '''  ''  ^'  9'^'  '*  i^'-^-  ^-i^^- 
15.  18.  19.  Xo  these  passages  McNeile  would  add  4^-12,  which  Sieg- 
fried and  Haupt  also  regard  as  glosses;  but  the  verses,  though 
proverbs,  are  so  appropriate  to  the  context  that  I  cannot  persuade 
myself  that  Qoheleth  did  not  quote  them.  As  we  have  seen  above, 
the  editor  of  the  book  was  much  interested  in  the  work  of  the  wise, 
and  it  is  quite  possible  that  the  proverbial  glosses  just  enumerated 
were  introduced  by  him.  There  is  no  necessity,  therefore,  of  sup- 
posing that  more  than  two  hands  have  made  additions  to  Eccle- 
siastes since  it  left  the  hands  of  Qoheleth.  One  was  an  editor 
deeply  interested  in  the  Wisdom  Literature,  and  the  other  who 
came  after  him,  was  deeply  imbued  with  the  spirit  of  the  Phari- 
sees. The  first  edited  the  book  because  it  formed  an  important 
addition  to  the  W.isdom  Literature,  and  possibly,  too,  because  he 
thought  it  a  work  of  Solomon  (see  on  129).  The  second,  finding 
such  a  work  attributed,  as  he  supposed,  to  Solomon,  added  his 
glosses,  because  he  thought  it  wrong  that  the  great  name  of  Solo- 
mon should  not  support  the  orthodox  doctrines  of  the  time. 
The  material,  added  by  these  glossators  as  catalogued  above,  is, 
however,  but  a  small  part  of  the  material  in  the  book. 

§  8.     qoheleth's  thought  in  outline. 

The  book  opens  with  an  introduction  or  preface  (ch.  i*-")  in 
which  Qoheleth  sets  forth  his  conviction  that  everything  is  vain. 
Life  and  the  processes  of  nature  are  an  endless  and  meaningless 
repetition.  Men  are  unconscious  of  the  repetition,  because  each 
generation  is  ignorant  of  the  experiences  of  the  generations  which 
have  gone  before  it. 


QOHELETH'S   THOUGHT  IN   OUTLINE  47 

As  though  to  give  a  demonstration  of  the  thesis  of  the  preface 
Qoheleth,  in  the  next  section  of  the  book  (112-226),  narrates  his  ex- 
periments, under  the  assumed  character  of  King  Solomon,  in  seek- 
ing satisfaction  first  in  wisdom  (1^^-^^),  then,  in  material  and  sen- 
sual things  (21-"),  next,  in  the  virtues  of  folly  (2^2-17)^  ^^d  lastly,  he 
states  (2i8-2«),  the  conclusions  to  which  his  various  experiments 
have  led.  These  conclusions  are  that  there  is  no  permanent  satis- 
faction in  any  kind  of  earthly  activity.  All  labor  is  alike  vain. 
There  is  nothing  better  than  to  eat  and  drink  and  gain  such  animal 
satisfaction  as  one  can  while  life  lasts.  This  is,  it  is  true,  vain, 
i.e.,  fleeting,  but  it  is  the  only  ray  of  satisfaction  in  a  world  of  vain 
toil  and  transient  phenomena. 

Qoheleth  then  proceeds  (3^-'^  to  exhibit  man's  helplessness  in 
the  grip  of  those  laws  which  God  has  established.  Human  activi- 
ties are  limited  to  certain  times  and  seasons  in  which  man  goes  his 
little  round  doing  only  what  other  men  have  done  before.  His 
nature  cries  out  for  complete  knowledge  of  the  works  of  God,  but 
God  has  doomed  him  to  ignorance,  so  that  the  best  he  can  do  is  to 
eat  and  drink  and  ignorantly  get  what  little  enjoyment  he  can 
within  these  limitations.  The  philosophy  which  is  for  the  second 
time  repeated  here,  bears  a  striking  resemblance  to  that  of  the 
Gilgamesh  fragment  quoted  above. 

A  section,  then  follows  (3'*-^0  which  is  but  loosely  connected 
with  the  preceding,  in  which  Qoheleth  argues  that  the  oppressions 
of  human  government  and  the  injustices  of  human  courts  prove 
that  men  are  like  beasts,  and  the  fact  that  both  experience  the  same 
death,  and  return  to  the  same  dust,  confirms  this.  Immortality  is 
such  a  questionable  thing,  that  another  argument  is  found  for  the 
'Semitic  theory  which  the  Babylonian  poet  had  formulated  long 
before  Qoheleth,  that  the  best  one  can  do  is  to  make  the  most  of 
the  present. 

From  the  general  reflections  suggested  by  oppression  and  injus- 
tice, Qoheleth  passes  in  the  next  section  (4^-^-)  to  a  closer  examina- 
tion of  man's  inhumanity  to  man,  speaking  first  of  the  pathos  of 
the  oppression  of  the  weak  by  the  powerful,  then,  of  the  envy 
created  by  rivalry,  and,  lastly,  of  the  lonely  miser's  inhumanity  to 
himself.     He  contents  himself  here  with  a  statement  of  facts;  the 


48  ECCLESIASTES 

conclusion  to  be  drawn  from  them  had  been  stated  at  the  end  of 
ch.  3.  Ch.  4'3-i6  sets  forth  the  vanity  or  transient  nature  of  popu- 
larity as  exhibited  in  the  history  of  two  young  unnamed  kings. 
The  statement  suggests  that  the  acme  of  human  glory  is  even  more 
vain  than  other  forms  of  human  activity. 

In  ch.  5^  -'  Qoheleth  offers  us  his  most  extended  remarks  upon  re- 
ligion. The  two  glosses  (5^  and  7-^)  on  dreams  do  not  seriously 
interrupt  the  flow  of  his  thought.  He  had  in  ch.  3  revealed  his 
conception  of  God  as  a  powerful  being,  who  keeps  man  in  ignorance 
(3"  emended  text),  and  who  has  circumscribed  man  in  the  inex- 
orable meshes  of  fate,  so  that  man  may  fear  him.  Now  Qoheleth 
goes  on  to  counsel  obedience,  reverence,  and  a  faithful  perform- 
ance of  one's  covenants  w  ith  God.  His  conception  of  God  is  dark, 
but  such  religion  as  he  has  is  sincere.  Qoheleth  has  no  tolerance 
for  shams,  nor  sympathy  with  the  glib  worshipper  who  in  a  mo- 
ment of  fright  will  covenant  with  God  for  anything,  if  only  he  may 
escape  the  impending  danger,  and  then  go  his  way  and  forget  it 
when  the  danger  is  past.  What  in  his  view  the  real  function  of  re- 
ligion was,  he  does  not  tell  us,  but  he  does  insist  that  such  religious 
practices  as  one  engages  in  should  be  reverent  and  sincere. 

In  ch.  58-69  Qoheleth  returns  again  to  the  subject  of  oppression, 
which  in  every  Oriental  country,  as  in  every  despotism,  is  so  pain- 
ful an  element  in  life.  He  first  observes  that  in  a  country  ruled  by 
a  hierarchy  of  officers  oppression  is  to  be  expected,  though  a  king 
is  on  the  whole  an  advantage,- and  then  passes  to  the  consideration 
of  the  various  kinds  of  oppression  which  grow  out  of  the  love  of 
money.  In  the  course  of  this  discussion  he  more  than  once  (5'8  i* 
62-  3)  reiterates  his  theory,  that  the  one  ray  of  light  on  life  is  to  eat 
and  drink  and  gain  w^hat  enjoyment  one  can,  without  wearing  one's 
self  out  in  useless  labor.  This  is  transient  (vain,  6"),  but  there  is 
nothing  better. 

These  thoughts  lead  Qoheleth  in  ch.  6^°-^-  to  revert  to  the  theme 
of  ch.  3,  the  contrast  between  puny  man  and  fate.  •  In  ch.  y^-'^  Qo- 
heleth introduced  a  few  proverbs  which  enforced  his  point  of  view. 
These  the  Hokma  glossator  has  considerably  amplified  with  prov- 
erbs which  have  no  bearing  on  the  question  in  hand. 

Then,  as  though  the  indictment  against  the  order  of  the  world 


QOHELETH'S   THOUGHT   IN    OUTLINE  49 

were  not  sufficiently  strong,  Qoheleth  in  the  next  section  (y'lo') 
enters  upon  a  second  arraignment  of  life.  He  sets  forth,  excluding 
interpolations,  in  715-22  the  uselessness  of  going  to  extremes,  in  723-29 
his  judgment  of  wom,en,  in  S^-^  he  reflects  once  more  upon  despot- 
ism, in  S^o-i^  he  reiterates  his  conviction  that  the  results  of  right- 
eousness and  godlessness  are  the  same,  in  S'^-q'  he  describes  an- 
other fruitless  experiment  to  fathom  the  world  by  wisdom,  and  in 
92-6  the  hopelessness  of  humanity's  end;  while  in  g''-^^  he,  in  view  of 
this  argument,  restates  again  more  fully  that  Semitic  philosophy 
of  life,  which  he  holds  in  common  with  the  Babylonian  poet,  and 
at  one  point,  as  we  have  seen,  almost  quotes  that  poet's  words. 
Ch.  917-103  are  glosses  added  by  the  Hokma  editor. 

In  the  next  section  (10^ -^o)— a  section  greatly  interpolated  by  the 
Hokma  editor — Qoheleth  offers  still  further  advice  as  to  the  proper 
conduct  to  be  observed  toward  rulers. 

Lastly,  in  the  final  section,  ch.  iii-i2»,  Qoheleth  utters  his  final 
counsels.  He  has  probed  life  and  the  \vorld  relentlessly.  He  h^s 
stated  his  conclusions  frankly,  undeterred  by  any  sentimental  rea- 
sons. He  has  been  compelled  to  find  the  older  religious  concep- 
tions of  his  people  inadequate,  and  the  newer  conceptions,  which 
some  about  him  were  adopting,  unproven.  His  outlook  has  forced 
him  to  pessimism,  but,  nevertheless,  his  concluding  advice,  in  ac- 
cordance with  the  Semitic  philosophy,  which  more  than  once  dur- 
ing his  writing  has  come  to  the  surface,  is  manly  and  healthy,  if 
not  inspiring.  Enter  into  life  heartily,  be  kindly,  venture  to  sow 
and  reap  and  fill  the  whole  round  of  life's  duties  while  you  can. 
Let  the  young  man,. therefore,  make  the  most  of  his  youth,  for  the 
inevitable  decay  of  bodily  powers  will  come  with  advancing  age, 
and  the  cheerlessness  of  Sheol  will  terminate  all. 

Such  are  Qoheleth's  thoughts  and  such  is  his  advice.  His  phi- 
losophy of  life,  though  in  a  sense  hopeless,  is  not  immoral.  He 
nowhere  counsels  debauchery  or  sensuality;  he  rather  shows  that 
in  these  there  is  no  permanent  enjoyment.  Though  a  sceptic,  he 
had  not  abandoned  his  belief  in  God.  It  is  true  that  God  is  for 
him  no  longer  a  warm  personality  or  a  being  intimately  interested 
in  human  welfare.  The  ancestral  faith  of  Israel  in  Yahweh  has 
been  outgrown;  Qoheleth  never  uses  the  name.     God  is  an  in- 


50  ECCLESIASTES 

scrutable  being.  It  is  vain  to  seek  to  understand  his  works.  All 
we  can  know  is  that  he  holds  men  in  the  iron  vice  of  fate.  Never- 
theless Qoheleth  preaches  a  gospel  of  healthy  work  and  the  full 
enjoyment  of  life's  round  of  duties  and  opportunities.  Let  a  man 
fulfil  these  while  he  bravely  faces  the  real  facts  of  life — this  is  the 
sum  of  Qoheleth's  teaching. 

It  is  a  teaching  which  is  to  a  Christian  chilling  and  disappoint- 
ing, but  Qoheleth's  negative  work  had,  no  doubt,  a  function  to 
perform  in  clearing  away  outworn  conceptions  before  a  new, 
larger,  truer,  and  more  inspiring  faith  could  have  its  birth. 

His  book  probably  owes  its  presence  in  the  canon  to  the  fact  that 
he  had  impersonated  Solomon  in  the  early  part  of  it.  This  was 
taken  literally  by  the  unimaginative.  Orthodoxy  afterward  added, 
as  we  have  seen,  some  sentences,  to  soften  the  teaching  of  the 
book  for  Pharisaical  ears. 

§  9.      WAS    QOHELETH   WRITTEN   IN    METRICAL    FORM? 

Two  different  scholars,  Zapletal  (Die  Metrik  des  Buches  Kohelet, 
Freiburg,  Schweiz,  1904)  and  Haupt  (Koheleth,  Leipzig:  his 
views  were  set  forth  in  1905  in  English  in  his  Ecdesiastes,  Balti- 
more), propounded  quite  independently  of  each  other  the  theory 
that  the  whole  of  the  original  work  of  Qoheleth  was  composed 
in  metrical  form.  Both  scholars  have  naturally  proceeded  to 
make  this  theory  a  guide  in  the  textual  criticism  of  the  book, 
though  the  metrical  criterion  in  the  hands  of  Zapletal  leads  to  far 
less  radical  results  than  in  the  hands  of  Haupt. 

A  candid  study  of  the  book  leads,  however,  to  the  conclusion 
that,  as  applied  to  the  whole  book,  this  metrical  theory  is  a  mistake, 
however  true  it  may  be  for  parts  of  it.  Clear,  too,  as  some  of  the 
characteristics  of  Hebrew  poetry  are,  our  knowledge  of  Hebrew 
metre  is  still  in  too  uncertain  a  state  to  enable  any  scholar  to  make 
it  a  basis  for  textual  criticism  with  any  hope  of  convincing  any 
considerable  number  of  his  colleagues  of  the  validity  of  his  results. 
(See  Cobb's  Criticism  of  Systems  of  Hebrew  Metre,  1905-)  To 
bring  any  Hebrew  text  into  conformity  to  the  metrical  rules  of 
one  of  our  modern  schools  requires  the  excision  of  many  words  and 


WAS   QOHELETH   WRITTEN   IN   METRICAL   FORM      51 

phrases.  Such  excision  may,  in  a  work  clearly  poetical,  be  often 
obviously  right,  though  in  many  cases  it  seems  probable  that  a  He- 
brew poet  varied  the  length  of  his  lines  to  the  despair  of  modern 
students  of  metre.  But  to  go  through  a  book  large  parts  of  which 
are  in  prose  and  turn  it  into  metrical  form  by  cutting  out  much 
of  its  material  seems  unwarranted.  Such  methods  are  calculated 
to  create  doubts  as  to  the  validity  of  metrical  criteria  generally, 
and  to  cast  unjust  suspicion  upon  them  even  for  real  poetry. 

The  real  form  of  Ecclesiastes  was  recognized  as  long  ago  as  the 
middle  of  the  eighteenth  century.  Bishop  Lowth,  in  his  Lectures 
on  the  Sacred  Poetry  of  the  Hebrews,  Lect.  xxiv,  says:  ''The  style 
of  this  book  (Ecclesiastes)  .  .  .  possesses  very  httle  of  poetical 
character,  even  in  the  composition  and  structure  of  the  periods." 
He  adds  in  a  footnote:  "  It  is  the  opinion  of  a  very  ingenious  writer 
that  the  greater  part  of  this  book  was  written  in  prose,  but  that  it 
contains  many  scraps  of  poetry,  introduced  as  occasion  served, 
and  to  this  opinion  I  am  inclined  to  assent."  He  refers  to 
Desvoeux,  Tent.  Phil,  and  Crit.  in  Eccles.,  lib.  ii,  cap.  i.  (Cf. 
also  J.  D.  Michaelis,  Poetischer  Entwiirf  der  Gedanken  des  Pre- 
diger-Buchs  Solomon,  1751).  The  correctness  of  this  view  was 
recognized  by  Ewald,  who  in  his  Dichter  des  alten  Biindes  trans- 
lated parts  of  the  book  as  poetry  and  the  rest  as  prose.  Driver 
has  recently  in  his  edition  of  the  text  of  Qoheleth  (in  Kittel's  Bihlia 
Hebraica,  1905)  arranged  all  the  material  metrically  which  will  at 
all  lend  itself  to  metrical  arrangement,  but  treats  large  portions  of 
it  as  prose.  Briggs  holds  the  same  opinion,  although  he  regards 
the  conception  of  the  book  as  poetic  fiction  belonging  with  Job  to 
the  Wisdom  Literature.  Ewald's  method  is  followed  in  the  transla- 
tion given  below,  where  an  attempt  has  been  made  to  give  in  He- 
brew parallelism  all  the  parts  which  can  justly  be  regarded  as 
metrical.  To  suppose  that  the  whole  book  was  of  necessity  poeti- 
cal in  form  because  parts  of  it  are,  is  to  forget  the  analogy  of  the 
prophetical  books,  in  which  the  degree  of  liberty  which  Hebrew 
writers  might  allow  themselves  in  alternating  between  prose  and 
poetry  is  amply  illustrated.  The  thought  of  Qoheleth,  as  Genung 
has  well  said,  is  prosaic.  It  is  a  prose  book;  the  writer,  in  spite  of 
occasional  parallelism,  ''has  the  prose  temper  and  the  prose  work 


52  ECCLESIASTES 

to  do."     This  is  true,  on  the  whole,  in  spite  of  the  fine  poetical 
passage  in  ch.  12  with  which  the  book  originally  closed. 

§   10.      THE    LINGUISTIC    CHAILA.CTERISTICS    OF    QOHELETH. 

The  Hebrew  in  which  the  book  of  Ecclesiastes  is  written  exhibits 
some  of  the  latest  developments  of  that  language  which  appear  in 
the  Old  Testament.  The  decadent  character  of  the  tongue,  as 
here  employed,  appears  in  the  use  of  Aramaic  and  Persian  words, 
the  emplo}'ment  of  late  words  used  elsewhere  only  in  the  Mishna; 
in  the  use  of  late  developments  and  mixtures  of  Hebrew  forms,  the 
absence  or  infrequent  use  of  characteristic  constructions,  such  as 
the  waw  consecutive,  and  the  frequent  employment  of  syntactical 
constructions  rare  in  the  older  books. 

Proof  of  the  statement  just  made  may  be  offered  as  follows.  (This 
list  of  linguistic  peculiarities  is  by  no  means  exhaustive) : 

A.  Aramaic   words,  forms   and   constructions. — '?5n  as  cstr.  in   i*; 

nap,   jlO     2"     3IS     4*    610    9*-    7;  ]>JJ,    Il3    223.    26      .jlO     48     ^8.  ISj  pp^    jlS     ^13      ja*; 

-y^if,  9I;  3-^|->,  9I8;  I'pu,  iqS;  pD,  io9;  Dmn  p,  10";  ;?-tc,  lo^o;  nnS^,  ii'-  »<>; 
So3,  12';  P1J3"^-',  12". 

B.  Persian  words. — Di-;)?,  2^;  djps,  8". 

C.  Forms  atid  words  identical  with  those  of  the  Mish  na. — ^x  =  "  woe," 
41"-  ioi«,  cf.  Mish.  Yebamoth,  13",  and  the  references  in  Ja.  43b;  nj-'ON  = 
"caper- berry,"  12*,  cf.  Ma'aseroth,  4*,  etc.,  and  Ja.  5b;  ni  =  nNT,  2^-  "• 
515  ^23  913^  cf.  V,  Erub.  4«,  Yom.  3^;  -Kin  nr,  where  Nin  is  a  copula  as  in  the 
Mishnic  abbreviated  "inr,  v^,  etc.,  c/.  iTe/.  s^",  etc.,  also  Dr.  §201  (3); 
Da.  §106,  rem.  2;  the  use  of  n   with  nouns  without  the  article,  as  n?  '^d, 

8' 91, like  the  Mishnic  ni  c-in,  and   n? nT="this"  .  .  .  "that,"  also 

without  the  art.,  3»9  6*  7"- >»  ii«;  n?  >N="what"or  "what  then,"  2'  ii* 
cf.  Peah,  78,  and  K6.  §§  70,  414m;  Nr  =  "be  guiltless"  or  "quit  from," 
718,  cf.  Berakoth,  2';  ^N"^2="the  power  of  seeing"  or  "enjoying,"  6'  ii», 
tf.  Yoma,  74b,  BDB.  909b  and  Ja.  834b;  ^r,  59  and  nNir  t,  9^="  who- 
ever," cf.  Sheb.  98-  9;  -'i^  used  instead  of  "^rN  as  a  relative  89  times.  It 
occurs  a  few  times  in  the  older  literature  from  the  song  of  Deborah  down 
(see,  on  i');  in  Cant,  and  Eccl.  it  occurs  side  by  side  with  nrN,  marking 
a  transition  period;  in  the  Mishna  it  displaces  nrN  entirely. 

D.  Late  developments  of  Hebrew  forms. — Here  may  be  noted  the 


RELATION    OF   ECCLESIASTES   TO    BEN    SIRA  53 

omission  of  syncope  in_  writing  the  article  after  prepositions,  as  D^mo, 
8';  the  fondness  for  abstracts  in  V  as  inn^,  ]^2'c'^^,  pa^r,  etc.;  fondness 
also  for  abstracts  in  ni,  as  ni;-i,  i",  etc.;  P-iSsr,  i^^,  ri^^D,  2^,  niSSin,  lo's, 
niSsr,  ID'S  nn'?"',  n^;  the  confusion  of  stems  "xS  and  "nS,  g.^.,  Np^n,  2^6, 
gi2  ^2.  18^  see  also  Q.'s  treatment  of  the  forms  of  Nif",  7^6  lo^,  x^r;,  8^, 
and  cf.  Ges.K-  §7500;  the  confusion  of  forms  >>  with  forms  ">,  as  rin; 
from  u*u*n,  2"^,  ysy  from  ss:,  12^  written  with  x  like  axit  from  Dp  (in  Hos. 
10^);  the  pron.  •'DJX  never  appears,  it  is  always  "-jx;  nsDx,  12'S  found 
only  I  Chr.  26'5-  ",  Ne.  12-^  where  it  forms  its  plural  differently. 

E.  Late  syntactical  dei'elopments.-^Waw  consecutive  with  the  imperf. 
occurs  but  three  times,  i^M^-  ^-  On  the  other  hand,  the  participial  con- 
struction is  most  frequent— 1^-8  2»-  i'  3^°-  ^'  4'  5'  ^'^  8^2-  »•  '«  9^  lo'', 
etc.  The  part,  is  frequently  accompanied  by  a  personal  pronoun  as' 
its  subject,  as  xin  ny^.  iK  D>2V  on.  i^.  >jx  ii^^r2.  f-^.  ^jx  j,nv,  8'^,  cf. 
the  Mishna,  Nedarim,  \i\  These  participial  sentences  are  frequently 
negatived  with  r«,  as  d^>.-ji^  crx,  4'^  naf  i^.r?*,  9S  >1T' 1J'><,  nS  cf- 
Mish.,  Naz.,  2K  A  similar  construction  often  occurs  with  verbal  ad- 
jectives, cf  Sc>;  -"jx,  2's,  S??^  xin,  2^2,  -\Dn  ^ijrx,  6^,  x^d  i:j;x,  i^.  >jn  is 
often  used  pleonastically  with  the  first  person  of  the  verb,  as  ""jx  Tincx, 
21. 15^  >jx  >n>xn,  2'3-  2^  517;  cf  also  i^s  2^'-  ^■-  's-  »•  is-  ^c-  ^^  31^  4>-  "  81*,  etc., 
and  Ges.K-  135b.  -r2  =  "  because,"  2i«  and  -\rx2  =  "  because,"  72  8S 
as  in  NH.,  cf.  Ko.  §389e.  xS  ->rx -i"=" while  not,"  i2>-5,  like  the 
Mishnic  x^r-^v,  Berakoth,  y',  cf  Ko.  §3870. 

F.  Hebrew  used  in  Greek  idiom. — The  one  instance  of  this,  Dt:'>''  = 
"he  passes  them,"  i.e.,  "days,"  6'^,  where  the  idiom  of  TroLti-v  xp^^ov 
is  reproduced,  has  already  been  noted  above,  §6  (i). 

§   II.      THE    RELATION    OF    ECCLESL\STES    TO    BEN    SIRA. 

Wright  {Ecdesiastes,  pp.  41-46),  Schechter  {The  Wisdom  of  Ben 
Sira,  by  S..  Schechter  and  C.  Taylor,  Cambridge,  1899),  and 
McNeile  (Ecdesiastes,  pp.  34-37)  have  proved  that  the  book  of 
Ecdesiastes  was  known  to  Ben  Sira  and  influenced  him  to  such  a 
degree  that  the  book  of  Ecclesiasticus  clearly  betrays  its  depend- 
ence upon  Qoheleth's  work.  The  evidence  is  so  strong  that 
Noldeke  (ZAW.  XX,  90/.)  declares  that  contrary  to  his  expecta- 
tion he  has  been  led  to  the  same  conclusion.  Noldeke  and  ^IcNeile 
agree  that  Ben  Sira  used  Qoheleth  in  its  completed  form,  and 
this  is  clearly  proved  by  the  evidence.  I  quite  agree  with  Nol- 
deke, op.  cit.,  93,  that  DS.  Margouliouth  in  his  Origin  of  the 
'^Original  Hebrew'^  of  Ecdesiasticits,  London,  1899,  has  failed  to 


54 


ECCLESIASTES 


show  that  the  Hebrew  of  BS.  is  not  original  but  dependent  on 
the  Greek. 

The  proof  of  the  priority  of  Qoheleth  is  of  three  kinds :  (i)  Passages 
extant  in  the  Hebrew  text  of  Ecclesiasticus,  which  show  depend- 
ence upon  the  Hebrew  of  Qoheleth;  (2)  Passages  not  yet  recovered 
in  the  Hebrew,  but  the  Greek  of  which  is  clearly  a  translation  of 
Hebrew  practically  identical  with  that  of  Qoheleth,  and  (3)  Pas- 
sages in  which  Ben  Sira  has  paraphrased  the  thought  of  Qoheleth, 
though  clearly  dependent  upon  it. 


1.  Passages  of  the  first  class  are  as  follows: 


BS.  39»«  and  ^^,  DoiiO  dSd  Sn  ^fyo 
BS.  5^:  D"'i3T\j  t'piD  "•"»■•  '•D 

BS.   40":  a-'C*"' I'-lS  Sn  V"*ND  ^3 

(Ci  read  this  last  clause,  dirb 
vdaTWP     et's     dd\aajav)^'\Vii 


Qoh.  3'i:  irj?3  nD>  ntj'j?  Sdh  pn 
Qoh.  3'^:  TTij  nx  rp3^  D\-iSNni 
Qoh.  32('-  21;  -\D';n  p  n>n  Son 


BS. 

32^  ( 

35^):     DDnnn  nn  n;?  Sji. 

Qoh. 

7I6: 

nnr  DDnrn  Sxi 

BS. 

65: 

:f|'^Nr:  "inx  -[iiD  S>':3i 

Qoh. 

728: 

"<rx]{D  iSxD  nnx  oix 

BS. 

13^^: 

VJS  Njr>  -kthjN  2h 

Qoh. 

8': 

VJij  n^xn  Dix  Pz:Dn 

■.];-\^  DN1  3it2'^  ax 

Qoh. 

1214 

:                        :>'n  DX1  31t3  DX 

BS. 

37'': 

Qoh. 

8^: 

>n  non  j,n>  xS  nisD  noic' 

BS. 

14"- 

"2:       iS  a"'i3\i  ^*?  ;:'■«  dni 

jijyn  SiNU'3  nV  >d  nioT 

I*?  njn  nS  Sinw'S  pini 

Qoh. 

9'0: 

rvj^S  -in>  xsnn  nrx  So 

nu'VD  rx  10  nu7  -|noo 

'?ixt:*o  n::om  rjni  porni 

:ncr  -|Sn  nrix  nrx 

BS. 

37": 

DDni  tEj;'?  Don  ii*ii 

Qoh. 

129: 

Don  nSnp  nv-iir  -(rr-i 
DVn  nx  nj'n  n::S  ni>' 

BS. 

43": 

^Du  xS  nSxD  m;' 
Son  xin  -ion  yp^ 

Qoh. 

1213 

:      nx  j:ca'j  Son  non  ^"10 
vnixo  nxi  xni  ovn'^xn 

:Dixn  70  n?  10  ^^^^ov 

If  we  were  to  accept  Schechter's  conjectural  emendation  of  ijo 
ncK'  pen  n;'  (BS.  42")  to  nc^*  pTi  r;;  ijo,  we  should  then  have  a  parallel 
to  Qoh.  31 :  pnnpSo''.  Noldeke  and  McN.  regard  the  conjecture  as 
probable,  but  Peters  and  Levi  retain  ]^'2r\. 

An  unbiased  examination  of  these  coincidences  makes  upon  me  the 
same  impression  that  it  does  upon  Noldeke  and  McN.,  viz.:  that  Ben 


RELATION   OF    ECCLESIASTES   TO    BEN   SIRA  55 

Sira  knew  the  work  of  Qoheleth  and  used  his  words  as  a  modern 
writer  might  weave  into  his  work  the  words  of  Browning  or  Tennyson 
or  any  other  well-known  author.  In  at  least  one  case  (the  njC*>  of 
Qoh.  8',  employed  by  Ben  Sira,  13^4)  it  is  probable  that  Ben  Sira,  as 
Noldeke  suggests,  misunderstood  Qoheleth.  BS.  43^^  is  also  clearly 
built  on  Qoh.  i2»3.  As  the  parts  of  these  two  passages  in  Qoheleth, 
which  are  referred  to,  are  from  the  Hokma  glossator,  and  one  of  them 
forms  his  conclusion  of  the  book,  it  is  clear  that  Qoheleth  had  been 
touched  by  the  editor  before  Ben  Sira  used  it. 

2.  The  passages  of  the  second  class  indicated  above  are  as  fol- 
lows: 

Qoh.  3»4:  jjnjS  pN  uddi  fj^DinV  ^h  psy 

(where  vSj?  refers  to  "all  that  God  said"). 

Qoh.  81^:  D1N.-1  Sjv  nS  o  D''n>?Nn  nt'j'D  S^  nx  ^r>N-\i 

t''::t'7\  rnn  nu^j  nu'N  nc^cn  nx  xixa^ 

Cf.  BS.  18^:  ovKeariv  iXaTrQaai.  ov8e  irpoadeTpai  /cat  ovk  €(ttlp  i^ixvidaai 
Ta  davfidaia  toO  Kvpiov. 

Qoh.  5':  ^         ^^:h'Z'h  nnxn  Sn  d^h'^n'?  mj  mn  nc-ND 

-    Cf.  BS.  18--:  iJ.r]  i/jLTTodicrdfis  tov  (XTrodouvai  evxv^  evKaipcos. 

Qoh.  8'2:  D\-i'?Nn  •«x-^>'?  :ivlO  n\-i>  -ic^n  ijx  yw  dj  >3 

(tVJsSD  W\i">  -ic'n) 

Cf.  BS.  I '3;  T^  <poj3v/jL^p(p  TOV  KvpLov  e5  earai  iir   iax^Tuv. 

Qoh.  lo*:  ^liji  ^2  ycM  nijn 

Cf.  BS.  272^:  6  6pv(T(Tcjv  ^bdpov  els  avrbv  ifxireafiTai.. 

(This  may  have  been  suggested  to  Ben  Sira,  however,  by  Pr.26"a, 
as  BS.  27"  was  apparently  suggested  by  Er.  26^''^.) 

These  parallels  are  as  striking  in  their  way  as  those  given  under  class  i. 
One  of  the  quotations  (8'^)  is  from  the  hand  of  the  Chasid  glossator,  but 
it  is  probable  that  both  the  glossator  and  Ben  Sira  here  quote  an  ortho- 
dox sentiment  of  the  day,  for  there  is  reason  to  think  that  BS.  used 
Qoheleth  before  the  Chasid  expanded  it.     See  below  on  12''. 

3.  Instances  in  which  Ben  Sira  has  paraphrased  the  words  of  Qo- 
heleth : 

Qoh.  i^: 

"Generation  comes  and  generation  goes. 
But  the  world  forever  stands." 
Cf  BS.  i4i»  (Heb.): 

"As  leaves  grow  upon  a  green  tree, 
Of  which  one  wdthers  and  another  springs  up, 
So  the  generations  of  flesh  and  blood, 
One  perishes  and  another  ripens." 
Qoh.  37 : 

"A  time  to  keep  silence, 
And  a  time  to  speak." 


56  ECCLESIASTES 

CJ.  BS.  205-6  (Heb.): 

"There  is  one  who  is  silent  for  want  of  an  answer, 

And  there  is  one  who  is  silent  because  he  sees  the  time.'* 
"A  wise  man  is  silent  until  the  time, 
But  a  fool  does  not  observe  the  time." 
Qoh.  48^:  "For  whom  do  I  toil  and  deprive  myself  of  good?'* 
C/.  BS.  14^  (Heb.): 

"He  who  deprives  his  soul  gathers  for  another, 
And  in  his  goods  a  stranger  shall  revel." 
Qoh.  52b  (Heb.'*'):  "Therefore  let  thy  words  be  few." 
CJ.  BS.  7"''  (Heb.):  "And  repeat  not  a  word  in  prayer." 
Qoh.  512b  (Heb."*^):  "The  satiety  of  the  rich  does  not  permit  him  to 
sleep." 

CJ.  BS.  34'  (Heb.): 

"The  wakefufness  of  the  rich  wastes  his  flesh, 
The  care  of  living  dissipates  slumber." 
Qoh.  78b:  "Better  is  patience  than  pride." 
CJ.  BS.  5"''  (Heb.):  "In  patience  of  spirit  return  answer." 
Qoh.  71^:  "In  the  day  of  prosperity  be  joyful;  and  in  the  day  of  ad- 
versity, consider;  even  this  God  has  made  to  correspond  to  that." 

CJ.  BS.  2>?>'^'  '*  (^)'  "Good  is  set  against  evil  and  life  against  death; 
so  is  the  godly  against  the  sinner.     So  look  upon  all  the  works  of  the 
Most  High;  there  are  two  and  two,  one  against  another." 
Also  BS.  42^4: 

"All  things  are  double  one  against  another. 
And  he  has  made  nothing  imperfect." 
Qoh.  9I6:  "Wisdom  is  better  than  might,  but  the  wisdom  of  the  poor 
man  is  despised  and  his  words  are  not  heard." 
CJ.  BS.  1322 cd  (Heb.): 

"The  poor  man  speaks  and  they  say  'who  is  this?' 
Though  he  be  weighty  also  they  give  him  no  place."  . 
Qoh.  Ill": 

"Put  away  vexation  from  thy  heart 
And  remove  misery  from  thy  flesh." 
CJ.  BS.  3023  (Heb.): 

"Rejoice  thy  soul  and  make  glad  thy  heart 
And  put  vexation  far  from  thee." 

These  three  classes  of  parallels  make  it  clear  that  the  book  of 
Ecclesiastes  was  known  to  Ben  Sira,  and  that  he  regarded  its 
teachings  with  favor.  The  Chasid  glosses  were  probably  added 
after  his  time.     (See  below  on  i2^K) 


ATTITUDE  OF  BOOK  OF  WISDOM  TO  ECCLESIASTES 


57 


§   12.      THE  ATTITUDE  OF  THE  BOOK  OF  WISDOM  TO  ECCLESIASTES. 

As  Wright  and  McNeile  have  clearly  proved,  the  author  of  the 
Book  of  Wisdom^  Hke  Ben  Sira,  knew  the  work  of  Qoheleth,  but, 
unHke  him,  did  not  approve  of  it.  In  ch.  2^-^  he  sets  himself  to 
correct  various  sayings  of  the  ungodly,  and  palpably  quotes  as  such 
several  of  the  sayings  of  Qoheleth.     The  parallelism  is  as  follows: 


WISDOM. 

2».  For  they  (the  ungodly,  see 
i'«)  said  within  themselves,  rea- 
soning not  rightly:  Short  and  sor- 
rowful is  our  life,  and  there  is  no 
healing  at  a  man's  end,  and  none 
was  ever  known  who  returned 
from  Hades. 

2^.  For  by  mere  chance  are  we 
born,  and  hereafter  we  shall  be  as 
though  we  had  never  been;  be- 
cause a  smoke  is  the  breath  in  our 
nostrils,  and  reason  is  a  spark  in 
the  beating  of  our  hearts. 

2^  Which  being  quenched,  the 
body  shall  be  turned  to  ashes,  and 
the  spirit  shall  be  dispersed  as  thin 
air. 

2«.  And  our  name  shall  be  for- 
gotten in  time,  and  no  one  shall  re- 
member our  works;  and  our  life 
shall  pass  away  like  the  track  of  a 
cloud,  and  shall  be  scattered  as  a 
mist  chased  by  the  beams  of  the 
sun  and  by  its  heat  overcome. 

25,  For  our  life  is  the  passing  of 
a  shadow,  and  there  is  no  retreat- 
ing of  our  end,  because  it  is  sealed 
and  none  turneth  it  back. 

26.  Come  then  let  us  enjoy  the 
good  things  that  exist,  and  let  us 
use  the  created  things  eagerly  as  in 
youth. 


QOHELETH. 

223.  For  all  his  days  are  pains, 
and  his  task  is  vexation,  also  at 
night  his  heart  does  not  rest. 

5i8(ir).  The  (small)  number  of 
the  days  of  his  life. 


319.  For  the  fate  of  the  sons  of 
men  and  the  fate  of  the  beasts — 
one  fate  is  theirs.  As  is  the  death 
of  one,  so  is  the  death  of  the  other, 
and  all  have  one  spirit.  Cf.  also 
Qoh.  9". 

127.  And  the  dust  shall  return 
to  the  earth  as  it  was, 

And  the  spirit  shall  return  to 
God  who  gave  it. 

1".  There  is  no  remembrance 
of  former  men. 

216.  For  the  wise  like  the  fool 
has  no  remembrance  forever. 

95.  Their  memory  is  forgotten. 

2".  The  whole  was  vanity  and 
a  desire  of  wind. 

6'2.  The  number  of  the  days  of 
his  vain  life,  for  he  spends  them 
like  a  shadow. 

88.  Nor  is  he  ruler  in  the  day  of 
death. 

224.  There  is  nothing  better  for 
a  man  than  that  he  should  eat 
and  drink  and  enjoy  himself. 


58  ECCLESIASTES 


QOHELETH. 


2^.   Let    us    fill    ourselves    with  9'.  Drink  thy  wine  with  a  glad 

costly  wine  and  ointments,  and  let  heart, 
no  flowers  of  spring  pass  us  by. 

28.  Let  us  crowa  ourselves  with  9».  At  all  times  let  thy  garments 

rosebuds  before  they  be  withered.  be  white,  and  let  not  oil  be  lacking 

for  thy  head. 

2'.  Let  none  of  us  be  without  a  3^2.  For  that  is  his  portion, 

share  in  our  wanton  revelry,  every-  5'*.  For  that  is  his  lot. 

where  let  us  leave  tokens  of.  our  9^.  For  it  is  thy  lot  in  life, 
mirth,  for  this  is  our  portion  and 
this  is  our  lot. 

As  Qoheleth  is  the  only  Jewish  writer  known  to  us  who  cham- 
pions such  sentiments,  there  can  be  Httle  doubt  that  this  polemic 
is  directed  against  him.  It  is  true  that  in  the  following  verses  the 
author  of  Wisdom  denounces  oppressions  which  Qoheleth  nowhere 
countenances  and  couples  them  with  these  false  doctrines;  that 
does  not,  however,  prove  that  his  shafts  are  not  aimed  at  Qoheleth, 
for  it  has  in  all  ages  been  one  of  the  methods  of  theological  warfare 
to  hold  the  opinions  of  heretics  responsible  for  the  most  immoral 
practices. 

§    13.      DATE   AND   AUTHORSHIP. 

It  has  been  shown  above  (§5)  that  the  Solomonic  authorship  of 
Ecclesiastes,  denied  by  Luther  in  the  sixteenth  century,  and  by 
Grotius  in  the  seventeenth,  was  in  the  nineteenth  century  demon- 
strated by  scholarly  interpreters  to  be  impossible.  The  fact  that 
Solomon  is  not  the  author,  but  is  introduced  in  a  literary  figure,  has 
become  such  an  axiom  of  the  present-day  interpretation  of  the 
book,  that  no  extended  argument  is  necessary  to  prove  it.  No  one 
at  all  familiar  with  the  course  of  religious  thought  in  Israel,  as  sci- 
entific historical  study  has  accurately  portrayed  it,  could  for  a 
moment  ascribe  the  work  to  Solomon.  The  language  of  the  book 
also  strongly  reinforces  the  argument  drawn  from  the  thought.  It 
belongs  to  the  latest  stage  of  linguistic  development  represented  in 
the  Old  Testament.  As  shown  above  (§10)  not  only  are  older 
Hebrew  forms  and  constructions  changed  or  confused,  but  late 
developments  kindred  to  those  of  the  Mishna  are  present,  Aram.aic 


DATE   AND    AUTHORSHIP  59 

words  and  constructions  are  found,  at  least  two  Persian  words  are 
employed,  while  in  one  instance  the  influence  of  Greek  usage  can 
be  traced.  If  we  compare  the  language  of  Qoheleth  with  that  of 
the  earliest  prophetic  document  of  the  Pentateuch  (J.),  we  shall 
fmd  that  they  stand  at  the  two  extremes  of  Hebrew  linguistic  de- 
velopment, the  former  representing  the  latest,  and  the  latter  the 
earliest.  Under  such  circumstances  the  Solomonic  authorship  of 
Ecclesiastes  is  unthinkable. 

It  has  also  been  shown  above  (§5)  that  recent  interpreters  are 
divided  as  to  whether  Qoheleth  wrote  in  the  Persian  or  the  Greek 
period;  though  most  of  those  writing  in  the  last  few  years  hold  to 
the  latter  era.  If  our  recognition  of  a  Greek  idiom  in  Ecclesiastes 
is  valid,  it  points  to  a  date  posterior  to  the  conquest  of  Alexander 
the  Great,  for  we  must  agree  with  the  almost  unanimous  opinion 
of  recent  interpreters  that  the  author  lived  in  Palestine.  The-  ab- 
sence from  his  work  of  any  important  Greek  influence  (see  above, 
§6)  is  sufficient,  to  mention  no  other  feature,  to  make  a  non-Pales- 
tinian residence  on  his  part  out  of  the  question. 

It  has  long  been  thought  that  in  Qoh.  5^  there  is  a  reference  to 
the  Satrapial  system  which  the  Persians  invented.  If  this  be  true, 
it  does  not  prove  that  the  work  is  not  later  than  the  Persian  period, 
for,  as  is  well  known,  practically  the  same  system  was  continued 
by  Alexander  and  his  successors.  We  may  take  the  conquest  of 
Alexander,  then,  as  a  terminus  a  quo  for  the  composition  of  our 
book.  We  should  note,  however,  that  some  little  period  of  contact 
with  the  Greeks  should  be  allowed  for  before  the  writing  of  Eccle- 
siastes, in  order  to  account  for  the  use  of  a  Greek  idiom.  We  are 
thus  brought  down  to  the  third  century  B.C. 

A  terminus  ad  quern  for  Ecclesiastes  is,  on  the  other  hand,  fixed 
for  us  by  the  book  of  Ecclesiasticus.  As  has  been  shown  above 
(§11)  Qoheleth,  lacking  the  Chasid  glosses,  was  known  and 
used  by  Ben  Sira — a  fact  which  has  been  recognized  by  Tyler, 
Kuenen,  Margouliouth,  Noldeke,  A.  B.  Davidson,  Wright,  Peake, 
Cornill,  and  McNeile.  The  .date  of  Ben  Sira  can  be  pretty  accu- 
rately determined.  His  work  w^as  translated  into  Greek  by  his 
grandson,  who  in  his  prologue  states  that  he  translated  it  soon  after 
he  went  to  Egypt,  and  that  he  went  thither  in  the  thirty-eighth 


6o  ECCLESIASTES 

year  of  Euergetes.  As  has  long  been  recognized,  this  statement 
can  only  apply  to  Ptolemy  Euergetes  II  (Physcon),  and  is  probably 
reckoned  from  the  time  when  he  first  assumed  the  regal  dignity  in 
170  B.C., and  not  from  his  second  assumption  of  it  on  the  death  of 
his  brother  Philometor  in  146  B.C.,  for  his  reign,  terminating  in  117 
B.C.,  did  not  last  thirty-eight  years  after  that  event.  It  could  not 
refer  to  Euergetes  I  (247-222  B.C.)  as  he  reigned  but  twenty-five 
years.  We  are  thus  brought  to  the  year  132  (so  most  scholars, 
e.g.,  Tyler,  Ecdesiastes,  30;  Wright,  Ecclesiastes  35^.;  Sanday, 
Inspiration,  98;  Toy,  Ecclesiasticiis  in  EB.;  K.2i\xiz?,ch,  Apokryphen, 
I,  234-235)  for  the  migration  of  the  younger  Ben  Sira  to 
Egypt,  soon  after  which  he  translated  the  work  of  his  grandfather. 
If  we  allow  fifty  years  as  the  probable  time  which  elapsed  between 
the  composition  of  the  book  by  the  grandfather  and  its  translation 
by  the  grandson,  we  reach  about  180-176  B.C.  as  the  date  of  the 
composition  of  Ecclesiasticus.  It  must  have  been  written  before 
the  Maccabaean  revolt  broke  out  in  168  B.C.,  for  there  is  no  allu- 
sion to  Antiochus  IV  and  his  oppression  of  the  Jews.  This  date 
seems  to  be  confirmed  by  the  reference  to  the  high  priest,  Simon 
son  of  Onias  in  BS.,  ch.  50,  for  while  there  were  two  high  priests  of 
that  name  {cf.  ^os.  Ant.  xii,  2'=  and  4'"),  the  second  of  them,  to 
whom  reference  is  probably  made  here,  lived  late  enough  so  that 
Ben  Sira,  if  he  witnessed  the  scene  which  he  so  vividly  describes  in 
ch.  50"^.,  would  have  written  about  180-175  B.C.  The  date  of 
Ecclesiasticus  is  thus  in  the  opinion  of  most  modern  scholars  pretty 
definitely  fixed. 

As  Ben  Sira  quotes  Ecclesiastes  after  it  had  once  been  glossed 
(see  above  §§7,  11),  Qoheleth  must  have  written  at  least  twenty 
years  earlier.  We  are  thus  brought  to  about  the  year  200-195 
B.C.  as  the  terminus  ad  quern  for  our  book.  These  indications 
leave  the  whole  of  the  third  century  B.C.,  or  the  very  first  years  of 
the  second,  open  for  it. 

Can  we  define  the  date  more  closely  within  these  limits  ?  Our 
answer  to  this  will  depend  upon  our  interpretation  of  two  pas- 
sages, 4'3-i«  and  lo'^-'^     The  first  of  these  passages  reads: 

'■'.  Better  is  a  youth  poor  and  wise  than  a  king  old  and  foolish,  who  no 
longer  knows  how  to  be  admonished,  ".  though  from  the  house  of  the  re- 


DATE   AND    AUTHORSHIP  '     6 1 

bellious  he  came  forth,  although  even  in  his  kingdom  he  was  born  poor. 

'5.  I  saw  all  the  living  who  walk  under  the  sun  with  the  (second)  youtli' 
who  shall  stand  in  his  stead. 

>6.  There  was  no  end  to  all  the  people — all  whose  leader  he  was;  more- 
over those  who  carne  after  could  not  delight  in  him;  for  this  also  is 
vanity  and  a  desire  after  wind." 

Many  are  the  interpretations  which  this  passage  has  received 
(see  notes  on  4^^).  One  of  the  most  attractive  has  recently  been 
put  forth  by  Haupt  {Ecdesiastes),  according  to  which  the  ''old  and 
foolish  king"  is  Antiochus  Epiphanes  (175-164),  and  the  "poor  and 
wise  youth"  Alexander  Balas  (150-145  B.C.).  This  view  I  for  a 
time  adopted,  but  the  external  evidence  just  passed  in  review  com- 
pelled me  to  abandon  it.  Like  the  theory  of  Winckler — that  the 
contrast  intended  is  between  Antiochus  Epiphanes  and  Deme- 
trius I — it  is  rendered  impossible  by  the  clear  proof  that  Qoheleth 
lived  before  Ben  Sira. 

If,  with  the  date  indicated  by  the  external  evidence  in  mind,  we 
carry  the  book  back  to  the  verge  of  the  third  century,  remembering 
that  in  that  century  Palestine  w^as  under  the  control  of  Egypt,  we 
shall  find  that  Hitzig  was  on  the  right  track  in  his  interpretation  of 
the  passage.  The  "old  and  foolish  king"  would  be  Ptolemy  IV 
(Philopator),  who  died  in  205  B.C.,  and  to  whom  from  the  Jewish 
point  of  view  the  description  very  well  applies,  for  according  to 
3  Mac.  he  greatly  persecuted  the  Jews,  both  in  Palestine  and 
Egypt.  The  "poor  and  wise  youth "  would  be  Ptolemy  V  (tpiph- 
anes),  who  was  but  five  years  old  when  he  came  to  the  throne. 
He  is  perhaps  called  "poor  and  wise"  because  of  the  Jewish  sym- 
pathy with  him  and  hopes  from  him.  The  "rebellious  house" 
probably  refers  to  his  father's  persecution  of  the  Jews.  The  "  second 
youth"  (if  the  word  "second"  is  genuine)  would  then  be  Antiochus 
III  of  Syria,  who  had  succeeded  to  the  throne  of  that  country  at  an 
early  age,  and  who,  within  seven  years  after  the  succession  of 
Ptolemy  V,  was  w^armly  welcomed  as  sovereign  of  Judaea  (Jos.  ^ 
Ant.  xii,  33).  These  are  the  only  reigns  in  the  history  of  the  pe^yod 
which  at  all  correspond  to  Qoheleth 's  words,  and  it  seems  prob- 
able that  he  refers  to  these  kings.  This  view  receives  confirmation 
from  the  second  passage  cited  above,  lo'^-  ^^     It  is  as  follows: 


62  ECCLESIASTES 

Woe  unto  thee,  O  land,  whose  king  is  a  child, 
And  whose  princes  feast  in  the  morning. 
Happy  art  thou,  O  land,  whose  king  is  well-born 
And  whose  princes  feast  at  the  proper  time. 

As  Hitzig  has  seen,  v.  i6  probably  refers  to  the  years  after  the 
reign  of  Ptolemy  V  had  begun,  when  Agathoclea  and  her  brother 
were  the  favorites  in  power  (Justin,  XXX,  i),  when  revelry  flour- 
ished, and  when  Antiochus  III  (the  Great)  at  the  height  of  his 
power  was  prosecuting  those  wars  which,  after  inflicting  much 
suffering  upon  them,  robbed  Egypt  of  her  Palestinian  dominions. 
Possibly,  though  it  is  by  no  means  probable  (see  notes  on  9'^  «),  the 
reference  to  the  city  delivered  by  a  wise  man  from  the  siege  of  a 
powerful  king  (91^-16)  is  a  reference  to  some  incident  of  the  wars  of 
Antiochus  with  Egypt.  Probably  "Happy  art  thou,  O  land, 
whose  king  is  well-born  and  whose  princes  feast  at  the  proper  time," 
is  Qoheleth's  welcome  of  the  strong  rule  of  Antiochus  III.  Jose- 
phus  tells  us  (Ant.  xii,  y)  that  the  Jews  of  their  own  accord  went 
over  to  him,  and  welcomed  him  to  Jerusalem,  assisting  him  to  take 
the  citadel  from  the  Egyptians.  This  passage  apparently  reflects 
the  sentiments  of  that  w^elcome.  Qoheleth  was,  then,  not  com- 
pleted before  198  B.C.  Its  use  by  Ben  Sira,  on  the  other  hand, 
makes  it  impossible  that  it  should  have  been  written  much  later 
than  that  year. 

On  the  whole,  vague  as  these  historical  allusions  are,  they  make 
it  probable  that  Qoheleth  did  not  finish  his  book  untfl  after  the 
conquest  of  Antiochus  III,  about  198  B.C.  Slight  as  the  data  are, 
they  lead  us  with  considerable  confidence  to  place  this  work  just 
at  the  end  of  the  period  which  above  we  held  open  for  it,  if  not  to 
name  the  very  year  in  which  it  was  composed.  This  agrees  with 
^he  judgment  of  Hitzig,  Tyler,  Cornill  and  Genung. 

The  last  of  the  third  and  the  beginning  of  the  second  century 
B.C.  forms  a  fitting  background  for  such  a  work  as  Ecclesiastes. 
The  century  which  followed  the  death  of  Alexander  was  a  trying 
century  for  the  whole  East,  but  especially  so  for  Palestine.  Pos- 
sessed by  the  Ptolemies,  but  claimed  by  the  Seleucidie,  Palestine 
found  herself  in  the  precarious  position  of  an  apple  of  discord. 
The  gratitude  which  Seleucus  I  felt  toward  Ptolemy  I  for  the  aid 


DATE   AND   AUTHORSHIP  63 

rendered  him  in  obtaining  his  empire  (see  Bevan,  House  of  Seleu- 
cus,  I),  at  first  secured  peace  between  Egypt  and  Syria.  As  the 
century  advanced,  however,  the  Seleucid  claims  were  pressed  and 
Palestine  first  had  to  pay  taxes  to  both  (Jos.  Ant.  xii,  41)  and  then, 
toward  its  close,  became  the  unhappy  bone  of  contention  between 
her  two  powerful  neighbors,  suffering  severely.  Then,  too,  her 
internal  organization  must  have  been  such  as  to  bear  heavily  upon 
the  poor.  Ptolemy  III  had  deputed  Joseph,  son  of  Tobias,  to 
collect  the  taxes  of  the  country  (Jos.  Ant.  xii,  42),  and  Joseph  had, 
in  true  Oriental  fashion,  grown  rich  by  farming  out  the  taxes  to 
subordinates,  and  founded  a  powerful  house.  (The  ruins  of  the 
palace  of  Joseph's  son,  Hyrcanus,  may  still  be  seen  at  Arakal-Emir, 
east  of  the  Jordan.)  Oppressed  by  the  tax  collectors,  a  prey  to 
their  rich  and  powerful  neighbors,  suffering  increasingly  as  time 
went  on  from  the  ravages  of  war,  oppressed  during  the  later  years 
of  the  century  by  the  drunken  favorites  of  a  king  who  was  a  help- 
less child,  what  more  fitting  theatre  than  the  Palestine  of  this  time 
could  be  sought  for  a  book  like  Ecclesiastes? 

To  our  scanty  knowledge  of  the  history  of  this  period,  Qoheleth 
adds  some  valuable  items.  He  tells  us  that  both  in  the  court  and 
in  the  temple  wickedness  reigned  (3'*).  In  both  politics  and  re- 
ligion men  were  striving  for  selfish  and  sordid  ends,  to  which  the 
claims  of  justice  and  righteousness  were  made  to  bend.  The 
populace  generally  groaned  and  wept  under  the  oppressions  of  the 
powerful  (41)  and  had  no  redress.  This  oppression  was  aggra- 
vated by  the  hierarchy  of  officials  who,  rising  one  above  another, 
culminated  in  a  far-off  king  (5*  m).  The  land  is  controlled  by  an 
arbitrary  despot,  who  often  puts  fools  and  slaves  in  office,  degrad- 
ing the  rich  and  noble  to  subordinate  places,  but  it  is  useless  to 
oppose  him  (lo^-^).  Should  one  be  entrusted  with  an  official 
position  and  incur  the  displeasure  of  his  despotic  master,  it  is  bet- 
ter to  be  conciliatory  and  submissive  than  to  abandon  one's  post 
and  opportunity.  The  espionage  of  the  despot  is  so  complete  that 
it  is  unsafe  even  to  whisper  one's  discontent  to  one's  self,  lest  it 
shall  be  borne  to  the  ears  of  one  who  will  regard  it  as  treason  (lo^o). 
Moreover,  the  king  is  a  child,  and  his  nobles,  who  exercised  the  power 
in  his  name,  devoted  even  the  mornings  to  drunken  feasting  (io^«). 


64  ECCLESIASTES 

While  the  book  of  Ecclesiastes  makes  us  well  acquainted  with 
Qoheleth's  thoughts  and  character,  it  throws  little  light  upon  his 
circumstances  and  life.  Some  gleams  of  light  even  here  are,  how- 
ever, not  altogether  wanting.  We  learn  from  51  that  Qoheleth 
I  lived  near  the  temple,  and  this  fact  is  confirmed  by  S'",  in  which 
I  the  connection  between  "the  holy  place"  and  the  "city"  makes  it 
l^clear  that  his  home  was  Jerusalem.  Some  infer  from  ii',  taking 
it  to  refer  to  corn-trade,  that  he  lived  in  Alexandria.  Even  if  the 
passage  referred  to  trade,  which  is  doubtful  (see  noles  ad  loc), 
it  would  not  prove  an  Alexandrine  residence.  He  was  a  man  of 
wealth  who  could  gratify  every  appetite  for  pleasure  (2^-«).  At  the 
time  of  writing  Qoheleth  was  an  old  man,  for  he  had  begun  keenly 
to  appreciate  that  breaking  up  of  the  physical  powers  and  that  loss 
of  enjoyment  in  the  pleasures  of  youth  which  age  inevitably  brings 
(11 9-1 2^).  Further  confirmation  of  this  is  found  in  the  fact 
that  his  many  experiments  to  find  the  sumrmmt  bonum  in  pleasure, 
in  wisdom,  and  even  in  folly,  implies  the  lapse  of  years.  Appar- 
ently, too,  he  had  lived  long  enough  to  find  himself  alone — with- 
out son  or  brother  (4^).  His  life  had  also  been  embittered  by  an 
unhappy  domestic  alliance,  for  his  declaration  that  he  had  found 
more  bitter  than  death  "a  w^oman  who  is  snares  and  nets  her  heart " 
(726),  as  well  as  his  declaration  that  one  man  in  a  thousand  might 
be  true,  but  in  all  these  he  had  not  found  one  woman  (7 2*),  has  the 
ring  of  an  expression  of  bitter  experience. 

Only  this  little  can  we  clearly  make  out  as  to  the  private  life  of 
Qoheleth.  Plumtre  (Ecclesiastes,  35-52)  draws  an  elaborate  but 
altogether  fanciful  picture  of  Qoheleth's  life,  while  Winckler 
{AUorientalische  Forschungen,  2  Ser.,  143-159)  thinks  that  he  was 
either  a  king  or  a  high  priest.  He  argues  that  had  he  not  been,  so 
unorthodox  a  writing  as  his  would  not  have  been  preserved. 
Haupt  {Ecclesiastes,  iff.)  would  interpret  the  wordiSn  (="king") 
to  mean  the  "head  of  a  school,"  as  in  the  Talmud  (Gitt.  62a,  Ber. 
64a),  and  holds  that  Qoheleth  was  a  Sudducaean  physician,  who 
presided  over  such  a  school.  It  is  unthinkable  that  Qoheleth  could 
have  been  a  king  in  the  literal  sense  and  write  as  he  does  about 
government,  and  proof  is  altogether  wanting  that,  at  the  time  when 
he  wrote,  schools  such  as  Haupt  contemplates  had  arisen.     It  is 


DATE    AND    AUTHORSHIP  65 

more  probable  that  the  word  "king"  is  a  part  of  his  Hterary  arti- 
fice. It  must  be  said  also,  that  there  is  no  proof  that  Qoheleth  was 
a  physician.  As  already  remarked  (§5)  the  supposition  rests  upon 
metaphors  which  are  exceedingly  indefinite,  and  which  are  open 
to  quite  other  than  anatomical  interpretations.  In  reality  Qoheleth 
betrays  no  more  knowledge  of  either  medicine  or  anatomy  than  any 
other  intelligent  man.  To  call  him  a  Sadducee  is  also  to  anticipate 
history.  He  belonged  undoubtedly  to  that  wealthy  sceptical 
aristocracy  out  of  which  the  Sadducees  were  developed,  but  we 
cannot  trace  the  Sadducees  before  the  Maccaba^an  time.  As 
McNeile  (Ecdesiastes,  10)  suggests,  Qoheleth  may  have  been  of  the 
high-priestly  family,  and  himself  a  religious  official,  as  this  would 
account  for  the  care  with  which  his  unorthodox  book  was  adapted 
and  preserved.  Qoheleth,  a  pseudonym  which  probably  desig- 
nates the  name  of  an  office,  points  in  the  same  direction.  More 
than  this  we  cannot  say. 


COMMENTARY. 

Title,  I'.     THE  WORDS  OF  QOHELETH,  SON  OF  DAVID, 
KING  IN  JERUSALEM. 

(This  title  was  prefixed  by  the  editor.     C/.  Introduction,  ^7,  and  note  on  12'.) 

The  term  king  in  Jenisalem]  is  an  appositive  of  QoJieleth,  not  of 
David.  Qoheleth  ((g,  'E/c/cXeo-mo-Trj?;  'A,  KwXed)  is  a  crux.  It 
has  been  variously  interpreted,  but  probably  means  *' an  official 
speaker  in  an  assembly."  See  critical  note  below. — Son  of 
David.]  These  words  were  intended  to  designate  Solomon. 
They  were  added  by  the  editor  who,  on  account  of  a  hasty 
inference  from  I'-ff.,  regarded  Solomon  as  the  author.  As  Solo- 
mon had  the  greatest  reputation  for  wisdom,  wealth,  splendor, 
and  voluptuousness,  the  author  chose  him  as  a  character  through 
which  to  set  forth  in  literary  fashion  his  observations  on  life  and 
his  convictions  concerning  it.  This  the  prosaically  minded  editor 
mistook  for  authorship.  For  reasons  why  Solomon  could  not  be 
he  author,  see  Introduction,  §13. 

rhj?P]-  Tobiah  ben  Eleazar,  in  the  eleventh  century,  explained  it  as 
"One  who  collects,  assembles,  and  expounds,  among  rabbis"  (n\-ic'  nVnp 
DO"*^  uhm  mSnp  h''r\pv),  cf.  Feinberg's  Tobia  hen  Elieser  s  Commentar  zu 
Koheleth,  Berlin,  1904. 

In  Midrasli  Rabba  nSnp  is  explained  as  "Preacher,"  because  it  is  said 
that  Solomon  delivered  these  discourses  before  the  congregation 
(Snp).  This  meaning  was  defended  by  Luther  and,  among  present-day 
scholars,  by  Wildeboer.  Many  take  it  to  mean  "Assembler"  or  "Col- 
lector," but  opinions  differ  greatly  as  to  what  was  collected.  Ra.  thought 
of  Qoheleth  as  "Gatherer  of  wisdom,"  Grot,  as  a  "Collector  of  experi- 
ences," Wang,  as  "Collector  of  the  court,"  Dale  as  "Collector  of 
aphorisms  "  which  formed  an  address,  and  so  "deliverer  of  an  address"; 
Heng.  and  Gins.,  "An  assembler  of  people  into  the  presence  of  God." 
Jer.  rendered  it  by  " Concionator,"  "One  who  addresses  an  assembly  " 

67 


68  ECCLESIASTES 

a  meaning  which  is  followed  by  Dat.,  De  W.,  Kn.,  Heil.,  Del.,  Wr.,  Kd, 
Strack,  McN.  and  Ha.  This  meaning  comes  in  the  end  to  be  practically 
synonymous  with  "Preacher."  To  pass  by  many  fanciful  explanations, 
see  Ginsburg's  Coheleth,  p.  4^.,  Dod.  took  it  to  mean  "Assembly"  or 
"Academy,"  and  compared  German  and  French  royal  academies. 
Hit.  interprets  it  "Narrator,"  PI.  renders  it  "Debater,"  while  Che. 
(1893)  thought  it  might  mean  "The  ideal  teacher."  Margouliouth, 
Jewish  Encyc,  V,  32,  takes  it  to  mean  "member  of  an  assembly." 

The  (B,  'EKKXeaiaa-TT^s  from  'EKKXrjaia,  "assembly,"  is  an  imitation  of 
nSnp.  It  throws  little  light  on  the  meaning,  as  we  do  not  know  the  sig- 
nificance attached  to  it. 

nS^P  is  found  in  the  book  as  follows:  ch.  i>-  2.  12  727  128.  9.  10,  it  has 
the  article  (nV.np'^)  in  la^.  In  7*7  it  is  construed  with  a  fem.  verb,  unless, 
as  is  probable,  we  are  to  read  there  nSnpn  icn.  Probably,  therefore,  it 
is  an  appellative.  The  verb  '^r\p^  from  which  it  comes,  occurs  in  Hebrew 
only  in  Ni.,  "to  be  summoned"  or  "assembled"  (cf.  Ex.  32^  Je.  26' 
Ez.  38^  Est.  8"  q2-  ^*-  *^),  or  Hi.,  "to  collect"  or  "assemble"  (cf.  Ex. 
351  Lev.  83  Nu.  208  Dt.  410  Ez.  38'^  Job  iii",  etc.). 

The  root  ^rip  in  Aram,  is  used  in  Ni.  and  Hi.  in  the  same  meanings 
as  inHeb.  (cf.  Ja.  1322),  Syr.=  9''/ia/=" congregate,"  "collect";  Sab.  ^np 
nSnp=" assembly,"  "congregation"  (D.  H.  Muller,  ZDMG.,  XXX,  685, 
and  Hommel,  Chrest.,  127).  The  root  also  survives  in  Saho,  a  south 
Hamitic  language,  in  which  kahal=" come  together,"  "assemble" 
(Reinsch,  Saho  Sprache,  210).  In  Ar.  qahala="he  dry,"  "shrivelled," 
"shrunk,"  the  meaning  of  the  root  has  developed  in  a  different  direction. 

In  form  n^np  is  a  fem.  segholate  part,  of  the  Kal.  The  use  of  the  fem. 
here  has  received  different  explanations.  1.  Ra.,  AE.,  Ew.,  Hit., 
Heng.  and  Kue.  have  explained  the  fem.  on  the  ground  that  r^np  agrees 
with  or  stands  for  wisdom  (nnpn).  2.  Ty.  (Ecclesiastes,  57)  suggests 
that  it  denotes  "one  who  is  an  assembly,"  i.e.,  it  is  a  personification  of 
the  assemblies  of  men.  The  fact  that  n';'.^^P  is  usually  construed  with  a 
masc.  verb,  renders  both  these  explanations  improbable.  3.  Wm. 
Wright,  Arab.  Gram.  3d  ed.,  §233,  rem.  c,  explains  it  on  the  analogy  of 
Ar.  formations  as  an  intensive  fem.  formation,  an  opinion  with  which 
Wr.  (Ecclesiastes,  279)  agrees.  4.  Del.,  Che.,  No.,  Strack,  McN.  and  others 
explain  r^^ryp  as  the  designation  of  an  of!ice,  on  the  ground  that  the  fem. 
ending  is  so  used  in  nnob  "scribe,"  Ezr.  2",  and  Doxn  D-yin  "binder  of  the 
gazelles,"  Ezr.  2".      BT)B.  and  Driver  are  undecided  between  3  and  4. 

This  last  (4)  is  probably  the  right  understanding  of  the  form;  r^'^^^.P 
would  mean,  then,  "an  official  speaker  in  an  assembly."  Another 
solution  of  the  word  should  be  noted.  Re.,  L' Ecclesiastes,  13,  suggests 
that  it  is  a  cryptogram,  as  Rambam  is  for  Rabbi  Moses  Ben  Maimon, 
or  Rashi  for  Rabbi  Solomon  Isaac.     This  is  not  so  probable. 


AUTHOR'S  INTRODUCTION,  OR  PREFACE    [Ch.  1^"       69 


AUTHOR'S   INTRODUCTION,  OR  PREFACE. 

Ch.  i2".  The  thesis  of  this  preface  is  that  everything  is  vanity. 
Life  and  the  processes  of  nature  are  an  endless  and  meaningless 
repetition.  Men  do  not  perceive  the  repetition  because  each  genera- 
tion is  ignorant  of  the  experiences  of  those  which  have  gone  before  it. 

2.  yAXITY  of  vanities,  {says  Qoheleth) 
Vanity  of  vanities, 

All  is  vanity. 
'.  What  gain  has  a  man  of  his  whole  toil, 

Which  under  the  sun  he  toils  ? 
*.  Generation  comes  and  generation  goes, 

But  the  world  forever  stands. 
6.  The  sun  rises  and  the  sun  sets. 

Panting  to  his  place  he  rises  there. 
^.  Going  to  the  south  and  circling  to  the  north, 

Circling,  circling  goes  the  wind. 

And  on  its  circuits  the  wind  returns. 
'.  All  the  streams  flow  to  the  sea, 

But  the  sea  is  not  full ; 

Unto  the  place  whence  the  streams  flow, 

There  they  flow  again. 
8.  All  things  are  wearied, — 

No  one  is  able  to  utter  it, — 

The  eye  is  not  satisfied  to  see, 

Nor  the  eai  filled  with  hearing. 

9.  Thai  which  has  been  is  what  shall  be,  and  that  which  has  been 
done  is  what  shall  be  done,  and  there  is  nothing  new  under  the  sun. 
10.  There  is  a  thing  of  which  one  may  say:  see  this  is  new!  Already 
was  it  in  the  ages  which  were  before  us.  ".  There  is  no  remembrance 
of  former  men,  and  also  the  men  who  shall  be  later  shall  have  no  re- 
membrance with  those  who  shall  be  later  (still). 

Vv.  2-8,  as  Ewald  and  Driver  have  recognized,  are  poetical  in 
form. — %  Vanity  of  vanities].  ''Vanity" — the  word  meant 
''breath,"  "vapor,"  and  then  '^nothingness,"  "vanity."  It  is 
used  of  the  past  (Job  y^^)  and  the  worthless  (Lam.  41').  It  is  a 
favorite  word  with  Qoheleth.  He  employs  it  40  times,  while  in 
all  the  rest  of  the  OT.  it  is  used  but  ^;^  times.  As  Vaih.  and  Re. 
observe,  this  is  the  theme  of  the  book.  It  is  repeated  in  i2«,  the 
concluding  words  of  the  original  writer.  Says  Qoheleth],  these 
words  were  inserted  by  the  editor.     Qoheleth  always  speaks  of 


70 


ECCLESIASTES 


himself  in  the  first  person,  see  Introduction,  §7. — All],  as  has 
often  been  noted,  does  not  refer  to  the  universe,  but  to  all  the 
activities  of  life — "that  which  is  done  under  the  sun."  This  the 
latter  context  proves. — Gain\  found  in  this  book  nine  times 
(i3  211.  3  twice,  y  S^'  ^'  V'  ^^^d  ^0'°)  ^^  tl^^  meaning  of  "surplusage," 
"advantage,"  "profit." — ^3.  Under  the  siin\  This  phrase  is  pe- 
culiar to  Qoheleth  among  OT.  writers.  It  is  found  in  Ec.  25 
times.  It  is  used  to  denote  all  sublunary  things,  and  is  paralleled 
by  the  expressions  under  heaven  (ch.  i^^  2^  31)  and  ^^iipon  the 
earth''  (ch.  8'^-  '«  11-).  These  latter  phrases  are  used  by  other 
writers,  the  former  occurring  in  Ex.  171^  Dt.  7-^  9'^  2  K.  1427,  etc., 
the  latter  in  Gn.  8'^  etc. 

4.  The  world  forever  stajtds].  The  thought  which  oppresses 
Qoheleth  is  that  the  earth,  man's  workshop,  should  continue, 
while  man  himself  is  so  short-lived.  Jer.  correctly  perceived  that 
this  is  the  meaning.  A  part  of  the  thought  of  this  vs.  is  paraphrased 
in  BS.  14^*:  "As  leaves  gr,o\^:  upon  a  green  tree,  of  which  one  withers 
and  another  springs  up,  so  are  the  generations  of  flesh  and  blood, 
one  perishes  and  another  ripens." 

5.  The  sun  rise's  and  the  sun  sets].  From  man  Qoheleth  passes 
to  nature,  noting  first  that  the  sun  continually  goes  his  wearisome 
round  without  accomplishing  anything.  Possibly  as  Gins,  sug- 
gests, Qoheleth  means  to  hint  that  the  sun  has  a  little  advantage 
over  man,  for  though  the  sun  goes,  he  comes  again,  while  man 
passes  away  to  return  no  more. — Panting].  It  is  a  question  whether 
the  writer  means  to  say  that  the  sun  continually  pants  from  weari- 
ness (Gins,  and  Cox),  or  whether  he  pants  from  eagerness  to  start 
upon  his  course  again  (Wr.).  Wr.  adduces  in  favor  of  the  latter 
view  the  fact  that  the  Hebrew  word  (nsr)  is  ordinarily  used  in 
the  sense  of  panting  for  something  (r/.  Am.  2^  8^,  Job  5^,  Ps.  56^ 
57%  etc.).  It  should  be  noted,  however,  that  inu*  also  has  the 
meaning  of  "panting"  from  exhaustion  {cf.  Is.  42 ^^  Jer.  14*  and 
perhaps,  2").  As  the  latter  meaning  better  fits  the  thought,  it  is 
doubtless  the  one  intended  by  Qoheleth.  His  conception  of  the 
universe,  as  the  ®  and  Ra.  note,  is  that  of  a  stationary  flat  earth 
resting  on  an  abyss  through  which  there  is  a  subterranean  passage 
by  which  the  sun  finds  its  way  at  night  from  the  west  to  the  east. 


AUTHOR'S  INTRODUCTION,  OR  PREFACE    [Ch.  p-"       7 1 

The' Word  for  ''panting"  in  Heb.  is  used  of  the  panting  or  snorting 
of  animals.  Cleric  long  ago  perceived  that  Qoheleth  was  thinking 
of  the  chariot  of  the  sun  as  drawn  by  panting  steeds,  as  in  Ovid, 
Metam.  XV,  4i8#-  and  Virgil,  Georg.  I,  250.  Kn.  and  Wr.  object 
that  such  an  idea  is  entirely  un-Hebraic  and  consequently  impos- 
sible. Ha.  has,  however,  pointed  out  that  2  K.  23'!  shows  that 
even  before  the  exile  the  Israelites  were  familiar  with  it.  The 
comparison  of  Ps.  i9«  (Kn.  and  Heng.)  is  inapt.  Qoheleth's 
mood  is  very  different  from  that  of  the  psalmist. 

6.  Circling,  circling  goes  the  wind].  The  movements  of  the  wind, 
as  well  as  of  the  sun,  present  a  similar  series  of  endless,  wearisome 
repetitions.  North  and  south  only  are  mentioned  probably  be- 
cause east  and  west  were  mentioned  in  the  preceding  vs.  (so 
Gins.).  PL's  suggestion  that  they  are  alone  mentioned  because 
north  and  south  winds  are  the  prevailing  currents  of  air  in  Pales- 
tine is  erroneous.  The  Palestinian  winds  are  mostly  from  the 
west,  and  are  quite  as  likely  to  be  from  the.  east  as  from  the  north 
or  south. 

7.  All  the  streatns].  As  a  third  example  from  nature,  Qoheleth 
takes  the  fact  that  the  streams  all  continually/(?u'  into  the  sea  with- 
out filling  it.     Their  ceaseless  work  accomplishes  nothing. 

8.  All  things  are  wearied].  The  whole  universe  groans  with  man 
because  of  its  useless  and  monotonous  activity.  The  last  two 
lines  of  the  verse  may  be  interpreted  in  two  different  ways, 
(i)  With  Gr.,  PL,  No.  and  Ha.  it  may  be  taken  to  mean  that  neither 
the  eye  nor  the  ear  of  man  is  able  to  take  in  all  this  weariness. 
This  interpretation  ignores,  however,  the  literal  meaning  of  the 
words,  and  gives  them  a  sense  derived  from  the  context.  (2)  Wr. 
takes  the  words  in  their  natural  sense,  understanding  them  to 
mean  that  the  meaningless  rounds  of  nature  communicate  them- 
selves to  the  spirit  of  man,  so  that  eye  and  ear  enter  upon  endless 
courses  of  seeing  and  hearing  that  never  satisfy.  This  kst  seems 
the  more  probable  interpretation. 

9.  What  has  been  is  that  which  shall  be].  This  is  a  general  state- 
ment of  the  fact  that  all  things  move  in  constant  cycles.  The 
fact  has  been  illustrated  in  preceding  verses  by  a  few  striking  ex- 
amples.— 10.  Already  was  it].  This  anticipates  and  answers  an  ob- 


72 


ECCLESIASTES 


jection  which  may  be  urged  against  the  sweeping  statement  of  v.  9. 
— 11.  There  is  no  remembrance].  This  is  a  strong  statement  of  the 
transitoriness  of  fame.  As  Hit.,  Gins.,  Del.  and  Wr.  have  seen, 
it  is  not  a  restatement  of  vs.  10 — that  things  seem  new  because  of 
ignorance  of  history,  but  is  a  summing  up  of  the  whole  prologue. 
Q.  asks  at  the  beginning:  ''What  advantage  has  a  man  of  all  his 
labor?'*  Here  he  returns  to  say  in  substance  that  even  the 
most  famous  is  soon  forgotten.  PI.  and  Wr.  note  the  parallelism 
of  the  thought  to  utterances  of  Marcus  Aurelius  {Lib.  ii,  17;  iv, 
34,  35),  the  burden  of  which  is  that  posthumous  fame  is  oblivion. 
The  vs.  is  quoted  and  opposed  in  Wisd.  2^-  The  phrase,  There  is 
no  remembrance^  as  Hit.  observes,  corresponds  to  "what  gain?^^ 
The  thought  has  completed  a  cycle. 

2.  D"''73n  S^T  is  the  gen.  expressive  of  the  superlative  idea.  Cf. 
°"''07  ^y  Ex.  29",  D^'73>?  npjJ  Gn.  925,  -on'^un  -^vr  Ct.  i^,  o^?c*n  irr  i  K. 
8".  Cf.  M.  §8ia  and  H.  §9,  4a.  The  repetition  of  the  phrase  makes  it 
emphatic  (cf.  Da.  §29,  rem.  8,  and  K6.  1309m).  Wr.  notes  that  the 
phrase  is  an  ace.  of  exclamation  (cf.  K6.  §355q  r).  Q.  means  that  every- 
thing is  fruitless,  ineflfectual,  unavailing.  The  use  of  San  as  constr. 
instead  of  S^n  is  peculiar.  Hit.,  followed  by  Zo.,  compares  *??!*  in  Ps. 
35",  observing  that  owing  to  the  kinship  of  V  and  2  the  chief  vocal  is 
pressed  forward.  As  Wr.  notes,  however,  Sax  is  not  a  segholate.  Ew., 
Del.,  Wr.  and  Wild,  rightly  regard  it  as  an  Aramaizing  form. — nr] 
Kleinert  renders  "nothing"  or  "not,"  comparing  Ar.  ma.  This  is  in- 
correct. As  Wr.  observes,  the  negative  idea  grows  out  of  the  interroga- 
tion. 

3.  T"*'?!'],  from  a  root  which  appears  as  i.^^i  in  As.,  Ar.,  Sab.  and  Eth., 
but  as  "^n"'  in  Aram.,  Syr.  and  Heb.  In  north  Sem.  it  means  "to  be 
abundant,"  "remain  over." — '^?::;>],  in  the  earlier  language,  means  " sor- 
row," "suffering,"  "trouble"  (cf.  Gn.  4151  Nu.  232'  (both  E.)  and  Job 
31"  48,  etc.).  In  the  later  Ht.  it  means  "toil,"  "labor"  (cf.  Ps.  10712  Ec. 
211.  20  44.  6)_  As  Sieg.  notes,  Q.  employs  it  of  toilsome  labor.  In  Aram. 
Sr>'  also  has  the  latter  meaning  (cf.  Ja.,  sub  voce).  In  Samaritan  the 
stem  means  "make,"  "do,"  as  it  does  also  in  Ar.  Perhaps  Scy  has 
that  force  here 

r].  This  relative  is  kindred  to  the  As.  sa  and  Ph.  u*n.  It  is  a  demon- 
strative root  quite  distinct  from  irN.  The  two  existed  side  by  side, 
though  ~v  is  but  little  used  in  the  earlier  literary  language.  It  does, 
however,  occur  in  various  periods,  e.g.,  Ju.  5^,  in  what  is,  perhaps,  the 
oldest  bit  of  Heb.  in  the  OT.,  in  Ju.  712  (J.)  Ju.  6"  (JE.)  and  Ju.  8« 


AUTHOR'S  INTRODUCTION,  OR  PREFACE     [Ch.  P 'i       73 

(a  late  annotator).  In  Ct.  and  Ec.  it  occurs  frequently  side  by  side  with 
-irs.  Herzfeld,  Del.  and  Wr.  note  that  in  Ec.  -^  occurs  68  times,  and 
irs  89  times.  In  the  Mishna  it  has  quite -displaced  nrx.  -v  here  does 
not  denote  ace.  of  manner,  but  the  object  (Del.,  Wr.). — irctrn  nnn].  PI. 
confidently,  and  Wild,  hesitatingly,  explain  this  phrase  as  a  Graecism= 
v<f>i]\iu).  Kleinert  and  McN.  hold  that  this  is  unnecessary;  it  may  be 
simply  a  peculiarity  of  this  writer.  It  is  interesting  to  note  that  it 
occurs  in  two  Phoen.  inscriptions,  those  of  Tabnith  and  Eshmunazer, 
c.  250  B.C.  {cf.  G.  A.  Cooke,  North  Semitic  Inscr.,  pp.  26,  30),  in  just 
the  way  in  which  Q.  uses  it. 

4.  "iSh N3].     These  words  are  participles,  denoting  the  continuity 

of  the  action,  cf.  Da.  §100  (f),  Ko.  §412.  Q.  frequently  puts  these  words 
in  contrast  {cf.  ch.  51^  6^  Si").  ■iSn="to  die"  is  found  in  ch.  515  Ps. 
3914  Job  lo^i  1420.  Ni3="tobe  born"  occurs  ch.  51^  Ps.  yi's. —  zhv;] 
denotes  here,  as  often,  simply  a  long,  unknown  period  of  time,  BDB. 
The  misunderstanding  of  this  by  certain  mediaeval  Jews  occasioned  the 
comment  of  Maimonides  quoted  by  Gins.,  Coheleth,  526,  527. — n;7Cj?], 
fem.  part,  of  iDj;,  the  part,  again  denoting  duration.  Umbreit,  Vaih. 
and  Z6.  bring  into  connection  with  the  use  of  ^ny  here  the  fact  that,  in 
common  with  others  of  the  ancients,  some  Hebrews  believed  that  the 
earth  rested  upon  pillars  {cf  Ps.  75^  1045  Job  9«  38«),  and  hold  that  Q.'s 
language  shows  that  he  shared  that  belief.  This  is,  however,  a  mistake. 
id;?  is  often  used  simply  to  signify  continuance  {cf.  ch.  2^  Ps.  191"  Lv. 
135  Dn.  iQi^).  It  is  thus  that  Q.  uses  it  here.  His  form  of  statement 
throws  no  light  upon  his  belief  or  non-belief  in  the  pillar-theory  of  the 
earth's  support.  In  the  Talmud,  Shabbath,  30b,  it  is  said  that  vs.  4 
was  quoted  by  Gamaliel  in  a  discussion  with  an  unnamed  disciple, 
whom   Bloch  believes    to  have  been    the  apostle  Paul.     Cf  Wright, 

■  Ecclesiastes,  22  jf. 

5.  N3]  =  "set,"  cf  the  As.  irib  'satnsi=" sun  setting,"  and  sit  sant^i^ 
"  sun  rising."  Ha.,  for  metrical  reasons,  regards  u'cirn  after  n3  and  Nin  be- 
fore ov  as  glosses.  Zap.,  for  similar  reasons,  expunges  the  phrase  N-in  nny 
or.  The  metrical  form  of  the  book,  as  a  whole,  is,  however,  too  unsubstan- 
tial a  theory  on  which  to  base  textual  criticism  {seelntrod.  §9). — INir  and 
nn;i  are  participles  denoting  continuity  of  action. — iDipD  7n]  ,  according 
to  the  accentuation,  is  separated  from  ^ii^^  and  connected  with  the  first 
part  of  the  verse.  Many  interpreters  endeavor  to  adhere  to  this  punctu- 
ation, but  the  results  of  the  efforts  are  unsatisfactory.  Del.  has  clearly 
shown  that  this  accentuation  must  be  disregarded,  and  iD^pp  taken  with 
t]nw.  Many  render  the  phrase  "to  his  place  where  he  rises,"  supposing 
that  niTN  has  been  omitted  before  C'^.  (So  Ko.  §38od).  This  seems 
needlessly  to  obscure  the  thought.  The  force  of  the  participles  justifies  the 
rendering  given  above.  The  whole  phrase  is  omitted  in  a  small  group 
of  MSS.  {cf  Dr.).     The  ancient  translators,  with  the  exception  of  'A 


74  ECCLESIASTES 

(who  renders  eiVTrm),  have  missed  the  meaning.  (I  renders  ^\k€l,  S 
and  Q  €Trava<TTp€(p€L,  Jer.  "revititur,"  ^  ta'eb,  "he  returns,"  and  the 
Ul  IT"-'  "to  crawl."  Gr.,  despairing  of  finding  in  INiC'  a  satisfactory 
•meaning,  emends  the  text  to  IN  yi\  rendering  "returns  to  its  place,  again 
it  rises."     This  is,  however,  unnecessary. 

6.  The  repetition  of  J.piD]  strengthens  the  idea  of  continuance  ex- 
pressed by  the  part.  Cf.  Da.  §29,  rem.  8.  Cf.  also  Dt.  2"  1422  1620 
28"  and  Ex.  2330.  In  the  last  clause  the  same  effect  is  accomplished  by 
combining  "n'?''n  with  220.  Cf.  K6.  §36iq.  C&,  ®,  ^  and  H  wrongly  take 
the  first  clause  with  the  preceding  verse,  as  applying  to  the  sun. 
— pcs]="The  hidden,"  and  so  "north,"  from  jDS  "to  hide,"  cf.  BDB. 
and  Ges.Bu — on;'],  from  -i-n="to  flow,"  "give  light"  {cf.  BD5. 
204b  and  Ko.,  Vol.  II,  i,  §77),  is  regularly  used  for  "south"  in  contrast 
to  pss,  cf.  Ez.  402^-  27.  28  42 18.  It  is  a  poetical  and  late  word.  Cf. 
Job  371^. — S;*]  is  to  be  taken  with  the  following  verb  (Del.,  Zo. ,  Wr.). 
Sieg.  changes  it  to  Sn  because  G  reads  'Ett/.  Zap.,  p.  10,  omits  the  first 
clause  of  the  vs.  from  "iS^n  to  f'^iJS  for  metrical  reasons — a  change  which 
the  metrical  theory  seems  too  insecure  to  support. 

7.  As  Kn.,  Del.  and  Wild,  point  out,  2y^  with  S  and  an  inf.  means 
"to  do  a  thing  again,"  cf.  On.  30^1  Ho.  ii^  Job  7^  Ezr.  9".  See  Ko. 
§399v.  The  idea  is  not  that  the  streams  return  from  the  abyss  by  sub- 
terranean channels  (01  and  Gins,  and  Cox),  nor  to  the  return  of  water  in 
vapor  to  fall  as  rain,  as  in  Job  3627-  29  (Heng.).  As  Zo.  and  PI.  note,  the 
thought,  as  in  Aristophanes,  Clouds,  1248, 

(The  sea  though  all  the  rivers  flow  to  it, 
Increaseth  not  in  volume,) 

IS  confined  to  the  fact  that  the  flowing  rivers  accomplish  nothing.  The 
participles,  as  in  the  preceding  verses,  denote  the  continuity  of  the 
action. — Snj]  is  a  more   general    term  than  inj. — 3;^]  is   not   =  ncK^ 

(Sieg.),   but  to  be  taken  with    C' =" where,"  like  D-f nc'N  (Wr.). 

D'^pp  is  in  the  const,  state  before  the  rel.  sentence,  v  D'^pp  being  equiva- 
lent to  nc'N  D^pp,  cf.  Gn.  3920  Lv.  42^  and  Ko.  §277v,  so.  Hit.,  Zo.,  Wr. 
— nSd]  in  Jos.  3*5  is=" overflow,"  so,  perhaps,  here  (Sieg.). 

8.  0"'"^2n]  Kn.,  Heng.,  Heil.,  Ew.  and  Gins,  take  as  equal  to  "words," 
and  think  the  first  clause  means  that  speech  is  wearied  in  telling  of  the 
ceaseless  activities  of  nature.  Most  commentators — Wang.,  Vaih., 
Zo.,  Del.,  PL,  Wr.,  No.,  Gr.,  Wild.,  Sieg.,  VI.,  Cox,  McN.,  Gen.  and 
Ha. — rightly  take  it  in  the  sense  of  "things."  The  meaning  then  is  that 
all  things — the  sun,  the  winds,  the  streams  and  all  natural  objects — are 
weary  with  their  ceaseless  round  of  activities.  This  view  is  altogether 
to  be  approved.  Re.'s  rendering:  "Tout  est  difficile  a  expliquer," 
misses  the  point. — ;'r]  as  an  adj.  occurs  but  twice  in  the  OT.  outside 
of  this  passage,  Dt.  2518  2  S.  172,  and  in  both  of  these  passages  it  has 


AUTHOR'S  INTRODUCTION,  OR  PREFACE     [Ch.  I'-"      75 

the  passive  sense,  "weary,"  not  the  active,  "wearisome"  (Dale):  it  ac- 
cordingly means  "weary"  here. — "»J. _';],  as  Wr.  observes,  the  object 
to  be  suppHed  is  "'D. — ;::d*,.]  Hit.  and  Zo.  render:  "  so  that  I  will  not 
longer  hear."  This,  as  Wr.  notes,  is  unnecessary,  for  >3r  is  constructed 
with  J,-:  of  the  thing  satisfied,  cf.  ch.  6',  Ps.  1041^  Job  1922.  Ko.  §399 i 
notes  that  p  might  have  stood  before  rriN-^  instead  of  ^,  cf.  Is.  531'. 

9.  X2  n:;]  is  a  late  expression,  (g  and  H  wrongly  render  it  as  an  in- 
terrogative. It  is  used  by  Q.  in  the  following  passages:  315  610  7^^  8^ 
ID",  in  all  of  which  it  signifies  "that  which,"  or  "whatever."  It  is 
parallel  to  Aram,  n  jc,  cf.  Kau.,  GBA.  §22^;  but  nc'x  >d  is  used  in  a 
similar  way  in  earlier  Heb.,  cf.  Ex.  32". — n\-i]  as  Del.  and  Wr.  note, 
is  used  of  the  phenomena  of  nature,  which  occur  without  human  inter- 
vention {cf.  3'5-  22  610.  12  87  io»  ii2)^  and  nu'j?  of  occurrences  which  re- 
sult from  human  action  {cf.  i^^-  »  2^^  \^  q^  ^). — v-^n  So  pN]  is  a  universal 
negative  in  Heb.,  cf.  Nu.  iis  Dt.  8^  Dn.  i^  and  Ko.  §352 s-w.  The 
construction  has  passed  into  NT.  idiom,  cf.  ov  ttos,  Mt.  2422    Lk.  i" 

2i27.     Zap.  and  Ha.  omit  on  metrical  grounds  the  phrase  C'cun pxi. 

Although  it  is  a  striking  coincidence  that  the  two  advocates  of  the  metri- 
cal theory  agree  at  this  point,  the  fact  does  not  overbalance  the  un- 
certainty of  the  metrical  theory  (see  Introd.  §9).  The  discarded  phrase 
materially  strengthens  the  statement,  and  it  is  difficult  to  believe  that 
the  original  writer  did  not  pen  it. 

10.  t'>\  philologically  equivalent  to  As.  isu,  is  different  from  n^n  in  that 
it  assumes  existence  as  a  fact.  Its  use  is  equivalent  to  saying:  "There 
really  are  things"  {cf.  Ko.  §§325i-m,  3381-n). — 1 J -J,  if  the  present 
MT.  stands="  thing,"  cf.  on  v.  8.  MT.  is  supported  by  (F,  S  and  the 
Tal.,  (&,  21,  iC  and  ^  support  the  reading  -icn"'1  ■\ai"''k:*,  "there  is  one  who 
speaks  and  says."  McN.,  p.  138,  thinks  this  reading  is  older  than 
Aqiba,  and  that  the  present  reading  of  MT.  was  introduced  in  Aqiba's 
recension.  The  testimony  of  the  Versions  would  support  this  view. 
See  the  collected  testimony,  Euringer,  Masorahtext,  35. — r\-t]  follows 
HNn  in  727.  29^  in  both  of  which  cases  it  is  connected  with  the  following 
word  by  a  conjunctive  accent.  Here,  on  the  other  hand,  there  is  a  dis- 
junctive Tiphkha.  Wr.  observes  that  the  accent  gives  the  clause  the 
force  of  "See  this,  new  it  is."  McN.  regards  n;  as=Mishnic  in;  {cf. 
Kelim,  51"),  not  as  the  obj.  of  nxn. — sin n?  is  one  of  Q.'s  favorite  ex- 
pressions, cf.  223  48  52  and  N-Ti . nr  in  5I8. — n^r]  occurs  in  Biblical  He- 
brew only  in  Ec.  {cf.  ch.  i'"  2^^  315  42  610  9«- ''),  though  common  in  J.Ar. 
It  is  connected  with  the  Ar.  kabara  and  Eth.  kabra,  "to  be  great."  Its 
meaning  seems  to  be  "already,"  BT)B.  Ja.  assigns  it  also  the  meaning 
"long  ago,"  but  none  of  the  passages  from  the  Mishna,  which  he  quotes, 
substantiates  this  meaning.  The  word  constitutes  one  of  the  Aramaisms 
of  our  book. — n>n  -la's  cr'^yS],  the  verb  in  the  phrase,  should  strictly  be  vn. 
as  five  MSS.  actually  read  {cf  Ken.),  but  Heb.  is  not  always  careful  about 


76  ECCLESIASTES 

the  agreement  of  subj.  and  pred.,  c/.  ch.  lo'^  Je.  48'^  Zc.  ii*  Dn.  9^^ 
Some  regard  D''D'?J7  as  a  pi.  of  eminence  (Ko.  §26ok),  and  such  plurals 
regularly  take  a  sing.  vb.  (c/.  Da.  §116,  rem.  4). — U'Jo'^d]  is  a  strength- 
ened form  of  U'lJeS  cf.  Ju.  i^". — 11.  pipj]  is  usually  regarded  as  cstr 
before  the  prep.  ^;  so,  Kn.,  Heil.,  Z6.,  Ew.  and  Ko.  §3362.  Del.  ob- 
serves that  such  refinements  of  syntax  are  not  to  be  expected  in  our 
writer,  and  that  \\'\2\  is  to  be  taken  as  a  variant  spelling  of  jn^t-  He 
compares  jnn^  and  ^nc^a,  but  adduces  no  example  where  piDT  is  an 
abs.  Wr.  repeats  Del.,  adding  that  pnp;  may  be  regarded  as  a  form  more 
common  in  later  Heb.,  but  still  adduces  no  example.  Sieg.  agrees  with 
them.  There  is  in  reality  no  parallel,  so  far  as  I  know,  which  sub- 
stantiates this  view.  In  the  OT.,  wherever  p"\3T  occurs,  except  here  and 
in  ch.  2>^  it  is  in  the  cstr.  state  {cf.  Lv.  23^^  Is.  578).  It  is  better 
here  to  regard  the  word  as  cstr.  before  s,  especially  since  such  construc- 
tion finds  parallels  in  the  Mishna  (c/.  noS  oSm  Aboth,  5'^.  ^20^  '?^)\ 
ibid.,  515,  cf.  also  5"  and  Ko.  §3362). — a^'iC^'sn]  and  D^nnx]  were  for- 
merly incorrectly  understood  to  refer  to  things,  but  modern  writers,  except 
Gr.  and  Ha.,  take  it  rightly  to  refer  to  persons.  The  masc.  forms 
refer  to  persons  (cf.  Gn.  ;j^;^^  Dt.  19'^  Job  iS^"),  and  the  fem.  forms  to 
things  (cf.  Is.  42'  43'-  is  463). — D-'JDip  and  nvjaip  are  similarly  used, 
the  former  of  persons,  the  latter  adverbially  (cf.  i  S.  241^  Is.  43'^). 


112-226    QOHELETH'S    experiments    in    the    character    or    THE 
SON    OF    DAVID. 

Qoheleth  represents  himself  in  the  character  of  Solomon  as  seek- 
ing wisdom  more  than  anyone  else,  but  finding  in  it  no  permanent 
satisfaction  (i'2-'8)j  then,  as  seeking  joy  in  material  and  sensual 
things,  with  the  same  result  (2'  'i);  next,  as  trying  the  virtues  of 
folly  and  finding  them  no  better  (2'2-'7)j  and  lastly,  he  states  the  con- 
clusion to  which  his  various  experiments  have  led  him  (21 8-26). 

•2  I  Qoheleth  was  king  over  Israel  in  Jerusalem,  i'  And  I  gave 
my  heart  to  search  and  to  explore  with  wisdom  concerning  all  that  is 
done  under  the  heavens — it  is  a  bad  business  God  has  given  the  children 
of  men  in  which  to  toil.  "■  I  saw  all  the  works  which  are  done  under 
the  sun  and  behold  the  whole  is  vanity  and  desire  of  wind. 
15-  The  crooked  cannot  be  straightened, 
And  the  wanting  cannot  be  numbered. 

•*•  And  I  spake  with  my  heart,  saying:  Behold  I  have  greatly  in- 
creased wisdom  above  all  who  were  before  me  over  Jerusalem,  and  mv 
heart  has  abundantly  beheld  wisdom  and  knowledge.  "■  And  I  gave 
my  heart  to  know  wisdom  and  knowledge,  madness  and  folly,  I  know  that 


QOHELETH'S    EXPERIMENTS     [Ch.  V^2'-^  77 

this  also  is  desire  of   wind.      i^.  Yot  in  much   wisdom  is  much  vex- 
ation, and  he  who  increases  knowledge  increases  pain. 

21-  I  said  in  my  heart:  "Come  now,  I  will  test  thee  with  joy,  so  look 
upon  good,"  and  behold  also  it  was  vanity.  2.  Qf  laughter  I  said  it  is 
mad,  and  of  joy,  what  does  this  accomplish  ?  ^-  1  searched  out  in  my 
heart  how  to  stimulate  my  flesh  with  wine,  while  my  heart  was  acting 
with  wisdom,  and  to  lay  hold  on  folly  until  I  should  see  what  good  there 
is  for  the  children  of  men  to  practise  under  the  heavens  the  few  days  of 
their  life.  *■  I  undertook  great  works;  I  built  me  houses,  I  planted  me 
vineyards.  ^-  I  made  me  gardens  and  parks  and  planted  in  them  every 
kind  of  fruit  tree.  «•  I  made  me  pools  of  water  in  order  to  water  a 
plantation  springing  up  with  trees.  ^-  I  bought  bondmen  and  bond- 
maids and  had  slaves  born  in  my  house;  also  I  had  many  possessions 
of  cattle  and  sheep — more  than  all  who  were  before  me  in  Jerusalem. 
8-  I  collected  for  myself  silver  and  gold,  the  treasures  of  kings  and 
provinces;  I  provided  me  male  and  female  musicians  and  the  luxuries 
of  the  sons  of  men — all  sorts  of  concubines  (?).  ^-  And  I  became  con- 
tinually more  wealthy  above  all  who  were  before  me  in  Jerusalem;  also 
my  wisdom  remained  with  me.  10.  And  nothing  which  my  eyes  asked 
did  I  withhold  from  them;  I  did  not  deny  my  heart  any  joy,  for  my  heart 
rejoiced  in  all  my  toil,  and  this  was  my  portion  of  all  my  toil.  "■  And 
I  turned  (to  look)  at  all  my  works  which  my  hands  had  wrought  and  at 
the  toil  which  I  had  toiled  to  accomplish  and  behold  the  whole  was  vanity 
and  desire  of  wind  and  there  is  no  gain  under  the  sun.  12.  And  I  turned 
to  observe  wisdom  and  madness  and  folly,  for  what  (can)  the  man  (do) 
that  comes  after  the  king  ?  That  which  he  (the  king)  hath  done.  i^.  And 
I  saw  that  wisdom  has  an  advantage  over  folly  like  the  advantage  of 
light  over  darkness.  "  As  for  the  wise  man  his  eyes  are  in  his  head, 
but  the  fool  walks  in  darkness.  But  I  know  also  that  the  same  event 
will  happen  to  both  of  them.  i*.  And  I  said  in  my  heart  according  to 
the  fate  of  the  fool  thus  will  it  happen  to  me,  so  why  have  I  then  been 
wise  overmuch?  So  I  said  in  my  heart:  this  also  is  vanity,  i^-  For  the 
wise,  like  the  fool,  has  no  remembrance  forever,  inasmuch  as  in  days  to 
come  both  will  have  been  already  forgotten.  And  how  does  the  wise  die 
like  the  fool!  ^^-  And  I  hated  life,  for  evil  unto  me  was  the  work  which  is 
done  under  the  sun,  for  all  is  vanity  and  desire  of  wind.  i^.  And  I  hated 
all  my  toil  which  I  toiled  under  the  sun  because  I  shall  leave  it  to  the 
man  who  shall  come  after  me.  ''■  And  who  knows  whether  he  will  be 
a  wise  man  or  a  fool  ?  And  he  shall  rule  over  all  my  toil  on  which  I  have 
toiled  and  exercised  wisdom  under  the  sun.  This  also  is  vanity.  20.  And 
I  turned  about  to  give  my  heart  up  to  despair  concerning  all  the  toil 
which  I  had  toiled  under  the  sun.  21.  Yor  there  is  a  man  whose  toil  is 
with  wisdom  and  intelligence  and  success,  and  to  a  man  who  has  not 
toiled  for  it  he  will  leave  his  portion.     This  also  is  vanity  and  a  great 


78  ^  ECCLESIASTES 

evil.  22.  For  what  shall  be  to  a  man  for  all  his  toil  and  the  striving  of 
his  heart  in  which  he  toils  under  the  sun.  ".  For  all  his  days  are  pains, 
and  his  task  vexation,  also  at  night  his  heart  does  not  rest,  moreover  this 
is  vanity.  ^4.  For  there  is  nothing  better  for  a  man  than  that  he  ishould 
eat  and  drink  and  enjoy  himself  in  his  toil.  Also  this  I  saw  tTiat  it  is 
from  the  hand  of  God.  ^s.  For  who  can  eat  and  who  can  enjoy  apart 
from  him?    ^e.  For  to  a  man  who  is  good  before  him  he  gives 

WISDOM  AND  KNOWLEDGE  AND  JOY,  BUT  TO  THE  SINNER  HE  GIVES 
AS    A    TASK    TO    GATHER    AND    AMASS    TO    GIVE    TO    ONE  WHO  IS  GOOD 

BEFORE  God.     Also  this  is  vanity  and  a  desire  of  wind. 

12.  Was  king  over  Israel  in  Jerusalem].  The  author  indicates 
that  he  proposes  to  speak  in  the  character  of  Solomon.  It  is  his 
aim  to  offer  proof  of  the  general  position  taken  in  the  prologue  by 
adducing  the  concrete  experiences  of  Solomon.  Solomon  had 
had  wealth,  wisdom  and  opportunities  for  sensual  enjoyment. 
He  had  drawn  upon  every  source  of  ^'profit."  To  adduce  these 
concrete  experiences  would  be  the  most  powerful  literary  form  in 
which  to  couch  his  argument,  so  in  this  verse  he  assumes  that 
mask.  He  mentions  the  fact  of  kingship  as  a  claim  to  especial 
opportunities  for  experience  in  these  matters,  since  "the  wisdom 
of  a  learned  man  cometh  by  opportunity  "  (BS.  38'-'').  The  words: 
"over  Israel  in  Jerusalem,''^  exclude  any  king  of  the  northern 
kingdom  and  sufficiently  indicate  Solomon. — 13.  Gave  my  heart]. 
This  is  not  an  uncommon  idiom  for  turning  the  attention  {cf.  ch. 
117  y2i  39.10  Dn.  1012  I  Ch.  22i»).  It  is  parallel  to  "set  one's 
heart  (or  mind)"  (Job  7'^  Ps.  48^3  62'"  2  Ch.  12^^  3o'0-  It  is 
used  mainly  in  late  Biblical  Heb.  "  Search '^  and  "explore^'  are 
synonyms.  They  do  not  refer  to  higher  and  lower  forms  of  in- 
vestigation (Zo.),  but  to  different  methods.  "  Search  "  means  to  in- 
vestigate the  roots  of  a  matter,  and  "explore"  to  investigate  a 
subject  on  all  sid^  (Del.,  Wr.). — Is  Done].  This  is,  as  in  v.  9, 
employed  of  human  activities. 

14.  Works]  refers  also  to  human  actions. — Desire  of  Wind], 
i.e.,  an  unsatisfying  desire.  The  w^ord  for  desire  has  occasioned 
much  discussion.  The  peculiar  phrase  occurs  in  Biblical  Heb. 
only  in  this  book,  where  it  occurs  seven  times  altogether  (i'^  2"- 
17.  26  44.659^  See  critical  note. — 15.  The  crooked  cannot  be 
straightened]. — Re.,  PL,  Wr.  and  Gen.  are  probably  right  in  re- 


QOHELETH'S  EXPERIMENTS    [Cn.  1 1^-226  79 

garding  this  as  an  aphorism  quoted  by  Qoheleth  because  appli- 
cable to  hi's  theme. — The  wattting  cannot  be  numbered],  i.e.,  an 
untold  number  of  things  are  lacking. 

16.  All  who  were  before  me  over  Jerusalem],  it  is  difficult  for  the 
writer  to  maintain  the  mask  which  he  has  assumed,  and  as  Del., 
Wr.,  Wild,  and  McN.  have  noted,  he  falls  into  an  anachronism 
here  in  this  phrase,  since  Solomon  had  but  one  predecessor,  David. 
It  is  hardly  possible  with  Heng.,  Zo.,  No.  and  PL,  to  think  of  Jeb- 
usite  kings,  or  Melchisedek  (Gn.  14^^),  and  Adonizedek  (Jos.  lo^, 
cj.  also,  2  S  5."),  or  Ethan,  Heman,  and  Calcol  (i  K.  4^1).  It  is 
more  likely  the  phrase  of  one  who  was  familiar  with  some  set  for- 
mula, like  the  Assyrian  "the  kings  my  predecessors,"  which  he  sup- 
posed it  appropriate  for  kings  to  use.  After  letting  the  mask  slip 
once  more  in  2^-  »,  he  finally  throw^s  it  aside  altogether  in  2^2. — 17. 
Madness  and  folly],  ^^Contrariis  contraria  intelligiintur .^^  Qohe- 
leth determined  to  know  not  only  wisdom  but  the  opposite. — 18.  In 
much  wisdom  is  much  vexation].  The  burden  of  the  verse  is  blessed 
be  ignorance!  It  reminds  one  of  the  point  of  view  of  J.  in  Gn.  3, 
where  toil  and  pain  in  child-bearing  are  attributed  to  knowledge. 

2^  /  will  test  thee  with  joy].  Having  proved  the  futility  of  wis- 
dom (i'2-^^),  Qoheleth  now  tries  material  pleasures  (2'-ii)l  In  this 
introductory  verse  he  expresses  his  resolution.  The  context  shows 
that  joy  is  used  of  the  pleasure  derived  from  the  possession  of 
wealth  and  the  excitements  of  sensual  pleasure. — 2.  Of  laughter], 
unrestrained  merriment  is  represented  by  laughter  and  pleasure 
in  general  by  'Jjov."  To  the  beholder  both  often  seem  folly  or 
delirium.  Scholars  differ  as  to  whether  we  should  translate  "of" 
or, "to."  Gins.,  Ew.  and  Wild,  advocate  the  latter  view  and  ren- 
der as  though  the  sentence  were  a  direct  a'ddress.  Heil.,  Vaih., 
Del.,  Sieg.,  and  most  recent  interpreters  take  the  former  view, 
which  the  above  rendering  follows.  Parallel  examples  are  found 
in  Ps.  32  22^1  41^  Kn.  remarks  that  laughter  means  "lusty  re- 
joicing," cf.  76  10^3. — 3.  Searched],  as  Del.  notes,  this  is,  as  in 
Nu.  10",  equivalent  to  "explore."  Combined  with  "heart"  it 
denotes  discovery  by  mental  processes  (so  Wr.). — Sti?nulate], 
hterally  to  "draw"  (cf.  Dt.  21^  i  K.  22^*  2  Ch.  iS^^  job  24"), 
but  here   used  figuratively,  either   in   the  sense  of  "stimulate," 


8o  ECCLESIASTES 

''give  pleasure  to,''  or  ''refresh."  It  resembles^ Talmudic  usage 
as  Del.,  No.  and  Wild,  have  observed. — My  heart  was  acting 
with].  This  is,  as  several  interpreters  have  noted,  in  the  nature 
of  a  parenthesis. — 4.  /  built  houses,  I  planted  vineyards].  From 
the  excitements  of  wine  Qoheleth  turns  to  the  more  healthy 
pleasures  of  a  country  gentleman's  enterprises.  As  he  is  speak- 
ing in  the  character  of  Solomon,  probably  he  had  in  mind  Solo- 
mon's buildings  (cf.  i  K.  7  9'-  ^'  10' s^).  Near  these  buildings 
there  were  vineyards  {cf.  Je.  52^  Ct.  6-  8^^).  Works]  is  used  by 
metonomy  for  the  gains  of  work,  wealth,  riches,  possessions  (cf.  1 
S.  25'). 

5.  Gardens  and  Parks].  To  the  vineyards,  gardens  and  parks 
were  added.  The  former  w^ere  perhaps  devoted  to  practical  vege- 
tables {cf.  Dt.  11^"),  and  the  latter  to  trees,  though  in  older  Hebrew 
"garden"  stood  for  both.  Frequent  allusion  is  made  in  the  OT. 
to  the  "King's  gardens"  (Je.  39^  52'  2  K.  25^  and  Ne.  3'^).  Such 
enclosures,  constructed  by  the  wealthy,  contained  refreshing 
streams,  cool  shade  and  all  manner  of  fruit  trees  {cf.  Jos.  Antiq. 
viii,  7^  and  Qurhin,  13^5  and  55^^*^).  Sometimes  they  also  con- 
tained wild  animals  (Xen.  Anab.  i,  2^).  How  in  the  hot  and  thirsty 
east  such  scenes  attracted  the  imagination  may  be  seen  in  the  ex- 
aggerated description  in  Qtir\in,  47'«ff. — Q,  Pools  of  water].  In 
Palestine,  where  the  rainfall  of  the  winter  has  to  be  stored  for  the 
long  drought  of  summer,  rock-cut  reservoirs  or  cisterns  are  of 
such  importance  that  their  structure  was  a  worthy  boast  for  a  king 
{cf.  Mesha  of  Moab,  Moabite  Stone,  11.  9  and  23-25).  Ne.  2'^  3'% 
as  well  as  the  Siloam  inscription  and  Jos.,  BJ.,  v.  4-,  testify  to 
the  existence  of  an  important  reservoir  near  Jerusalem,  while  Ct. 
7*  alludes  to  one  in  Heshbon  and  2  S.  4'2  to  one  in  Hebron.  There 
may  be  seen  to-day  near  ancient  Etam  three  such  reservoirs, 
which  are  attributed  by  tradition  to  Solomon.  The  importance 
of  such  reservoirs  to  gardens  is  alluded  to  in   Is.  i^o  and  58". 

7.  Bondmen  and  bondmaids].  Slaves  formed  a  large  percentage 
of  the  population  in  all  the  civilized  countries  of  antiquity.  How 
frequently  they  were  bought  and  sold  may  be  seen  by  consulting 
any  body  of  Babylonian  contracts  such  as  Keilinschriftliche  Bib- 
liothek,  Vol.  IV.     The  purchase  of  new  slaves  was  probably  an~ 


QOHELETH'S   EXPERIMENTS     [Ch.  V^-2'-^  8i 

experience  in  the  life  of  every  wealthy  man.  About  750  B.C., 
when  the  ''Book  of  the  Covenant"  was  written,  a  slave  was  valued 
at  30  shekels  (Ex.  21^2),  while  after  the  exile  they  were  valued  at 
50  shekels  (Lv.  27').  For  Solomon's  slaves,  see  i  K.  920-  21  and  lo". 
Slaves  are  associated  with  flocks  and  herds  as  evidences  of  wealth 
(cf.  Gn.  i2i«  30"). — All  who  were  before  me],  the  author  permits 
his  Solomonic  mask  to  slip,  for  this  implies  that  he  had  had  many 
predecessors  in  Jerusalem. — 8.  Treasures  of  kings].  To  the  de- 
lights of  rural  possessions,  Qoheleth  added  the  treasures  of  a 
monarch  who  controls  the  taxes  of  large  provinces,  and  the  luxuries 
of  sensual  gratification.  He  is  still  posing  as  the  "Son  of  David," 
and  these  details  were  no  doubt  suggested  by  i  K.  4^  928  lo^^  y^^-  27 
III -^ — 9^  Continually  more  wealth}'],  in  i'"  Qoheleth  claims  to 
have  surpassed  others  in  wisdom,  so  here  he  clairns  to  have  sur- 
passed them  in  wealth.  In  the  last  clause  of  the  vs.  there  is  prob- 
ably a  reference  to  vs.  3.  He  means  that  in  spite  of  his  folly  in  the 
pursuit  of  wealth  and  sensual  delights  his  wisdom  remained  with 
him.  It  suggests  that  this  clause  about  wisdom  has  also  a  for- 
ward look,  and  refers  in  part  to  the  next  verse. — 10.  Not  deny  my 
heart  any  joy].  Still  drawing  on  the  accounts  of  Solomon's  splen- 
dor for  his  illustration,  Qoheleth  represents  himself  as  able  to 
gratify  every  desire.  He  denied  himself  no  material  possession  or 
pleasure,  and,  like  the  man  in  the  parable  of  Jesus  (Lk.  1625),  he 
obtained  enjoyment — a  real  good — for  a  time.  This  was  his  ad- 
vantage, or  gain  from  his  toil.  The  passage  was  suggested  by  the 
statements  of  Solomon's  wealth  in  i  K.  428^  (Heb.  5««),  and  lo^^. 
The  eyes  are  used  by  metonomy  for  desire  which  is  not  sensual, 
cf.  I  K.  2o«  Ps.  i45'5  Ec.  i«  4«  and  Pr.  2720.  Similarly  we  have 
in  I  Jn.  2'«  '4ust"  (literally,  "desire")  of  the  eyes,  which,  though 
closely  associated  with  "lust  {i.e.,  desire)  of  the  flesh,"  is  not  iden- 
"tical  with  it. — Withhold],  for  the  meaning  cf.  Gn.  27^6  Nu.  ii''-  ^5, 
w^here  the  word  is  rendered  "take  away,"  "take  of." — Portion]  is 
here  equivalent  to  gain  or  reward. — 11.  And  I  turned].  This  is  as 
Del.  and  others  have  noted  a  pregnant  construction,  meaning  "I 
turned  to  look,"  cf.  Job  62*.  It  implies  that  Qoheleth  turned  from 
the  absorption  of  his  active  material  labors  and  his  sensual  pleas- 
ures to  consider  the  meaning  of  them  all,  and  finds  that,  like  the 


82  ECCLESIASTES 

delights  of  wisdom,  the  dehghts  of  possession  are  but  vanity. 
From  V.  3b  to  this  point  a  cycle  is  completed — an  experiment  has 
been  carried  through  and  a  result  reached. 

12.  Qoheleth  is  now  led  to  make  a  comparison  between  wisdom 
and  folly,  to  discover,  if  possible,  whether  wisdom  had  any  real 
advantage.  The  last  clause  of  the  verse  is  difficult  of  interpreta- 
tioil  because  the  text  is  corrupt.  It  is  rendered  above  from  an 
emended  text.  For  reasons  and  the  opinions  of  interpreters,  see 
critical  note. — 13.  Sieg.  assigns  this  verse  and  14a  to  his  Q',  or 
Hokma  annotator,  on  the  ground  that  it  contradicts  Q.'s  thought, 
but  the  objection  does  not  seem  well  taken.  As  PI.  suggests  Qo- 
heleth might  believe  that  all  is  vanity,  and  yet  hold  that  it  is  better 
to  face  the  reality  intelligently  than  to  be  carried  into  the  vortex  of 
oblivion  while  absorbed  in  senseless  folly.  A  line  from  the  Iliad 
(17"^)  is  apposite:  "And  if  our  fate  be  death,  give  light,  and  let  us 
die."  It  is  the  attitude  of  a  strong,  though  agnostic  mind.  The 
comparison  of  wisdom  to  light  is  kindred  to  the  use  of  light  in  Is. 
5111  Ps.  369433  119^05  Pr.  623.  For ''darkness"  in  the  sense  of 
"folly,"  cf.  Job  37'^     Cf.  also  Job  122^. 

14.  His  eyes  are  in  his  head].  The  wise  man  has  this  advantage, 
he  can  see.  The  expression,  as  Gins,  notes,  is  equivalent  to  "his 
eyes  are  open."  The  fool  goes  on  in  unconscious  darkness. 
Nevertheless  the  same  death  overtakes  both.  The  wise  ought  to 
have  some  advantage,  but  experience  shows  that  he  does  not. 
The  fact  that  death  relentlessly  claims  both  wise  and  foolish,  op- 
pressed others.     Cf.  Ps.  49'"  Job  21^6  and  Horace's 

Sed  omnes  una  manet  nox 
Et  calcanda  semel  via  leti. — Od.  I,  28'^^. 

15.  According  to  the  fate  of  the  fool  ^  The  fact  that  death  buries 
the  wise  and  the  foolish  in  the  same  oblivion,  makes  Qoheleth  pro- 
nounce great  wisdom  vanity,  in  spite  of  the  fact  that  he  has  just 
seen  in  wisdom  the  advantage  of  reality.  /  said  in  my  heart],  see 
on  1^6.     On  Vanity,  see  on  i^. 

16.  The  wise  die  like  the  fool].  Wild,  has  noted  that  Qoheleth 
contradicts  here  Pr.  10"  and  Ps.  112^  This  vs.  is  quoted  and  op- 
posed in  Wisdom  i<\ — Has  no  remembrance  forever].     Cf.  on  i". 


QOHELETH'S   EXPERIMENTS    [Ch.  l»2-22«  S>^ 

The  discovery  that  at  death  both  are  ahke  strikes  Qoheleth  as  a 
painful  surprise.  It  is  not  what  one  would  expect. — 17.  And  I  hated 
life].  This  expresses  a  strong  revulsion  of  feeling  from  something, 
cf.  2  S.  13'^  Is.  i'^  Am.  521  Mai.  i^  The  fact  that  the  wise  are 
swallowed  up  by  the  same  oblivion  as  the  fool  caused  this  revul- 
«iion  of  feeling.  As  Plumtre  remarks,  the  only  logical  out- 
come of  such  pessimism  is  suicide,  but  from  Qoheleth  to  Hart- 
mann  it  has  never  produced  suicide.  A  pessimist  who  is  able  to 
vent  his  feelings  in  literar}^  expression  continues  to  enjoy  life. — Evil 
unto  me  was  the  work],  i.e.,  it  was  evil  in  my  eyes. — Vanity  and 
desire  of  wind],  see  on  i'^. 

18.  /  hated  all  my  toil  .  .  .  because  I  shall  leave  it].  Qoheleth 
not  only  loathed  life,  but  also  his  toil.  This  latter  revulsion  was 
produced  by  the  thought  that  he  must  leave  all  the  results  of  his 
labor  to  some  one  else.  Probably  the  reference  is  to  such  works 
as  were  described  in  w.  4,  10,  11.  As  Plumtre  points  out  others 
have  been  oppressed  by  the  same  thought.  Mazarin  walked 
through  his  palace  and  said  to  himself:  II  faut  quitter  tout  cela, 
while  Frederic  William  IV  of  Prussia,  looking  at  his  garden  at 
Potsdam,  said  to  his  friend  Bunsen:  Das  auch,das  soil  ich  lassen. — 
And  I  hated]  is  the  repetition  of  a  formula.  Qoheleth  is  fond  of 
such  repetition. — 19.  Who  knows  whether  he  shall  be  a  wise  man 
or  a  fool?]  One  must  not  only  leave  his  possessions,  but  he  does 
not  know  into  whose  hands  they  will  fall  after  he  is  gone,  or 
whether  his  own  wise  policies  concerning  them  will  be  pursued  or 
not.  This  added  to  Qoheleth's  bitterness.  The  thought  is  simi- 
lar to  that  of  Ps.  39«  and  Lk.  1220.  The  Targ.  takes  this  and  the 
preceding  vs.  to  refer  to  Rehoboam,  but  Qoheleth's  statement  is 
entirely  general.  As  No.  and  Sieg.  have  noted,  Rehoboam  was 
forty-one  years  old  when  Solomon  died  (i  K.  14^0)  ^^^  Solomon 
must  have  known  whether  he  was  a  fool  or  not. — ^20.  Give  my 
heart  up  to  despair].  The  facts  stated  in  the  preceding  verses  dried 
up  the  springs  of  Qoheleth's  impulse  to  active  labor. — 21.  To  a 
man  who  has  not  toiled  he  will  leave  his  portion].  Qoheleth  broods 
over  a  fact  and  views  it  from  different  aspects.  This  vs.  is  not  a 
repetition  of  vs.  19;  the  thought  which  tortures  him  here  is  not  that 
his  heir  may  be  a  fool,  but  the  mere  idea  that  that  upon  which  one 


84  '  ECCLESIASTES 

toils  with  so  much  care  should  go  into  the  possession  of  one  who 
has  never  worked  for  it  at  all. — 22.  What  shall  be  to  a  man],  as  Gins. 
suggests,  this  corresponds  to  "what  advantage  to  a  man,"  of 
ch.  i^  The  thought  has  nearly  completed  a  great  cycle,  and 
Qoheleth  now  comes  back  to  sum  up  his  reasons  for  pessimism. 
—23.  All  his  days  are  pains].  This  verse  echoes  the  experi- 
ence of  those  who  follow  pursuits  which  cannot  satisfy  the  heart. 
They  obtain  no  real  pleasure  even  in  the  performance  of  their 
chosen  occupations.  One  phrase  of  it — "his  days  are  pain" — is 
in  substance  quoted  and  opposed  in  Wisd.  2K — 24,  25.  There  is 
nothing  better  for  a  man].  The  rendering  of  these  verses  given 
above  rests  on  an  emended  text,  the  'authority  for  which  is  given 
in  the  critical  notes  below.  Qoheleth  here  states  the  conclusions 
to  which  his  various  investigations  had  led.  The  best  thing  for 
man  is  to  get  the  most  physical  pleasure  he  can  out  of  life.  This 
is  not  stated  from  the  Epicurean  standpoint,  but  from  the  point 
of  view  of  Hebrew  monotheism.  Qoheleth,  as  a  Hebrew,  believes 
that  this  would  not  be  the  order  of  life,  if  God  had  not  so  ordained 
it.     The  sentiment  of  this  verse  is  quoted  and  denied  in  Wisd.  2«. 

26^  To  a  mun  who  is  good  He  gives  wisdom].  Recent  interpre- 
ters have,  with  some  differences  in  detail,  regarded  the  verse  as  a 
gloss;  so  Wild.,  Sieg.,  McN.,  and  Ha.  Sieg.  and  McN.  divide  it 
into  two  glosses,  regarding:  '^This  also  is  vanity  and  a  desire  of 
uind,''^  as  a  touch  of  a  late  hand.  That  the  verse  with  the  excep- 
tion of  the  last  clause  is  the  work  of  a  Chasid  glossator,  must  be 
granted.  It  contradicts  Q.'s  fundamental  philosophy.  The 
doctrine  that  all  the  good  things  of  life  come  to  the  morally  good, 
finds  expression  in  many  parts  of  the  OT.,  and  the  thought  that 
the  good  finally  receive  the  fruits  of  the  toil  of  the  wicked  is  also 
not  lacking  {cf.  Job  27I'  Pr.  1322  28^).  Such  a  cheerful  view  of 
the  moral  order  of  the  universe  is,  however,  totally  opposed  to 
Q.',s  whole  thought,  and  justifies  us  in  seeing  here  the  work  of 
another  hand.  I  cannot  agree  with  Sieg.  and  McN.,  though,  in 
seeing  the  hand  of  an  annotator  in  the  last  clause.  If  it  originally 
followed  vs.  25,  it  expressed,  as  pointed  out  above,  an  intelligible 
thought,  and  one  thoroughly  consonant  with  Q.'s  point  of  view. 

26'*.  Desire  of  wind]  or\g\nd\\y  ioWowtdxs.  25.     Q.'s  declaration 


QOHELETH'S    EXPERIMENTS     [Ch.  V^-2^^  S$ 

was,  that  there  is  nothing  better  for  a  man  than  to  eat  and  drink 
and  enjoy  hfe,  that  God  had  ordained  that  this  is  man's  destiny, 
but  that  there  is  no  real  satisfaction  even  in  this — this  also  being 
vanity  and  a  desire  of  wind.     This  is  a  note  of  profound  pessimism. 

112.  •»n'»\-i].  The  tense  has  occasioned  a  curious  amount  of  discussion 
among  commentators.  It  is  in  fact  a  perfect  denoting  a  state;  whether 
mental  or  physical  (cf.  Dr.  §ii,  Da.  §40,  Ko.  §124  and  Ex.  2^2  Gn. 
42"  Ps.  156).  The  Talmud  (Gittin,  68b),  Midrash  Yalhd,  AE.,  and  Ra., 
thinking  in  accordance  with  later  Hebrew  that  it  could  be  used  only  of 
past  events,  adopted  the  legend  that  in  his  old  age  Solomon  was  deposed 
by  Asmodaeus,  king  of  the  demons,  and  then  wrote,  "I  was  king." 
Gins,  agrees  that  the  writer  was  no  longer  king.  Gr.,  who  believes  that 
Herod  the  Great  was  referred  to,  falls  back  on  the  theory  that  hti  means 
here  "became,"  not  "was."  Bullock  quotes  Louis  XIV,  who  toward 
the  end  of  his  life  used  to  say:  "Quand  f'etois  roi,''  and  supposes  that 
Solomon,  like  Louis,  had  become  weary  of  kingship.  Of  course  Q.  is 
using  the  character  as  a  mask,  but  the  indefiniteness  of  the  tense  in 
Heb.  suits  his  purpose  well,  as  it  would  be  right  if  Solomon  were  really 
writing.  Snhu'"'  Sy  iVr:],  the  more  usual  expression  is  Sn"\B'>  iSd  {cf.  i  S. 
2620  I  K.  159  Ho.  ii  io»5  Am.  ii  710,  etc.),  but  Sn-^C'^  Sy  hSd  alsooccurs 
(2  S.  1923  I  K.  41  ii37).  Ha.'s  statement  that  nSn  may  mean  "head  of 
a  school,"  while  substantiated  by  Gittin,  62a,  and  Berakoth,  64a,  does  not 
fit  the  mask  which  Q.  was  wearing  throughout  the  passage. 

13.  ni»i]  has  been  claimed  as  aGraecism=(r/ct'7rTe(r^ai,  a  Gr.  philosophi- 
cal term,  but  it  is  good  Heb.,  being  used  of  the  spies  in  Nu.  132-  le-  " 
(cf.  McN.,  p.  40).  ]''jyl  =  " business,"  "occupation,"  occurs  in  OT. 
CMily  in  Ec.  (cf.  2^^-  2«  310  48  52.  13),  jt  is  an  Aramaic  loan  word,  occur- 
ring in  the  Targ.  on  Ps.  19^  412  Ct.  ii.  Ha.  curiously  regards  this  vs. 
as  a  gloss,  even  though,  according  to  his  own  rendering,  it  conforms  to  a 
metrical  standard. — 14.  vc'yjC'].  In  the  Mishna  the  usage  of  ^t";  is  similar, 
cf.  Berakoth,  2^,  Baba  Batra,  lo^. — m>;")l,  a  very  ancient  rendering  de- 
rived from  ';y-\  =  p'i'\  "to  break,"  makes  it  mean  "breaking,"  "affliction," 
or  "vexation  of  spirit."  Thus,  ^,  21,  U,  Ra.,  and  AV.  Another  old 
interpretation  derived  it  from  nj-n  to  feed.  So  'A,  6,  S,  AE.,  Mich., 
Ros.,  PL,  Re.  and  RV.'".  Others,  as  No.  and  Wild.,  take  it  from 
nyi  "to  be  behind"  {cf.  Gn.  3219  ^ij  Most  recent  interpreters  derive 
it  from  n>n  "to  wish,"  "desire,"  "strive  for,"  so  (&,  Kn.,  Hit.,  Eur., 
Heil.,  Wang.,  Vaih.,  Gins.,  Ty.,  Zo.,  Gr.,  Del,  Wr.,  VI.,  Sieg.,  McN.,  Ha., 
RV.,  BDB.,  Ges.^«-  These  scholars  differ,  however,  as  to  whether 
it  is  or  is  not  an  Aramaism,  and  some,  as  McN.,  who  so  render  it,  derive 
it  from  the  stem  n;'-\  "to  feed."  Ges."^"  calls  it  an  Aramaism,  and  it  is 
true  that  it  occurs  in  the  Aram,  portion  of    Ezr.  (51^  y'^).      It  occurs 


S6  ECCLESIASTES 

twice,  however,  in  the  form  nj!-\  in  Ph.  inscriptions  where  there  is  no 
reason  to  suspect  Aram,  influence,  one  coming  from  the  Piraeus  and  the 
other  from  N.  Africa  (cf.  G.  A.  Cooke,  No.  Sem.  Ins.,  97;  150).  Prob- 
ably the  root  is  n;?-\,  which  occurs  in  Ps.  37^  Pr.  15"^  Hos.  12^  — 15.  ^W-], 
Pu.  part,  from  my  used  only  in  Pi.  and  Pu.,  "to  be  perverse,  crooked." 
The  figurative  uses  in  Ps.  119^8  and  Lam.  ^^-  ^s  are  no  objection  to  this 
general  meaning  (cf.  ch.  y'^  12^  Job  8'  196  3412  Am.  8^  Ps.  1469). 
Gins.'s  inference  from  this  latter  passage  that  the  word  means  "de- 
pressed" is  unfounded.  Bick.  (10,  47)  erases  the  second  '?>v],  but  such 
repetitions  are  characteristic  of  Q.  (cf.  4}  6^  8^^).  ]P^^^  is  rendered 
as  a  passive  by  several  of  the  versions  (CS  eTriKoa-ixrjdTJvai,  J.  C.  udor- 
nari,  ^^lemesfnhatu,  (E  NjpnN'S,  H  corriguntur,  Ar.  yuzayyana).  This  leads 
Del.  to  observe  that  we  should  have  the  intrans.  Ii2'?V  instead  of  the 
trans.  i\>?^:,  Or.  says  ]pTh  must  be  a  passive=  li^ri^S  Sieg.,  McN.  and 
Dr.  would  emend  to  Ni.  Ii'^l^n'^-  A  passive  sense  is  necessary  to  corre- 
spond with  mjDn^.  The  root  occurs  in  BH.  only  in  Qoh.  {cf.  i'^  7^3 
12^).  It  is  found  in  Aram.  {cf.  Dn.  43'  and  Targ.  to  Jer.  7^  iS^i  and 
frequently  elsewhere  and  in  Tal.  (see  references  in  Ja.),  and  must  be 
regarded  as  an  Aramaism.  Cf.  As.  takana. — p">cn]  is,  as  Wr.  observes, 
a  a.\.  in  BH.  "^pn  occurs,  however,  in  Dt.  28^8. 57^  jn  the  sense  of  "want," 
"destitution."  "I'Dno  from  the  same  root,  is  the  word  usually  em- 
ployed {cf.  Pr.  6").  P'^'^n  is  often  employed  in  Mish.  and  Tal.  for 
"deficit"  in  money  matters,  see  5DB.  and  Ja.,  ad  loc. — •"HJ^'l':]  from 
njD,  "to  count,"  "number,"  occurs  often  in  BH.  Cf.  As.  manu,  Ar. 
mana.  Ew.,  who  is  followed  by  No.,  Wild,  and  Dr.,  suggested  that 
nijDn  is  corrupted  from  mSori,  from  ^^.'G^,  "  to  be  filled  up,"  or  "supplied." 
— 16.  "JN  ''n"^:3"i],  'J5<,  as  Gins,  and  Wr.  have  perceived,  is  not  emphatic, 
but  pleonastic,  see  ch.  2^  "  "15.13.20. 24  ^iso  K5.  §18,  and  Da.  §107,  rem.  i. 
— 2S  D>'  "'m3-(]  =  " commune  with  myself."  Generally  another  preposition 
is  employed  as  3S3,  ch.  2'-  ^^  Ps.  14^  15^;  or  3^  Sn,  Gn.  24^*^  or  3S  •?;',  i  S. 
ii3.  Probably  D>  is  employed  to  personify  the  heart,  c}.  d.^D"?  nvT'  "\nn, 
Dt.  5^ — \-iDDin)  TiSnjn].  Gr.  thinks,  from  the  form  ••nS^j  2',  that  the 
n  is  a  dittograph  from  the  preceding  njn.  The  two  perfects  are  coor- 
dinated when  in  reality  one  modifies  the  other,  as  Gins.,  Wr.  and  McN. 
have  seen  {cf.  2^,  S^).  The  combination  means  "I  greatly  multiplied" 
{cf.  Da.  §83,  Dr.  §157).— Sd  S'],  the  prep.,  as  Sieg.,  VI.  and  Ko, 
(§3o8d)  note,  is  equivalent  to  a  comparative  "more  than"  {cf.  Gn.  48" 
49^6  Ps.  162  899  137^  and  also  vTrkp  iroWods,  Gal.  i"). — ^"n]  is  sing., 
although  -\U'N*  refers  to  pi.  subject,  perhaps  as  Gins,  suggests  because  the 
plural  is  taken  distributively  in  the  writer's  thought.  Cf.  Da.  §116, 
rem.  i. — oSi^'n^  *?;;].  i4oMSS.readDSu'no  (c/.  Dr.).  n-in:i,as  Kn.,Heil., 
Gins.,  Wr.  and  Wild,  note,  is  a  Hiph.  inf.  used  adverbially  {cf.  H.  §28, 
2b,  rem.  g).     It  is  a  favorite  word  with  our  author  {cf  2''   5*-  \'-  '*•  i^- 


QOHELETH'S    EXPERIMENTS     [Ch.  1>'^2'-«  87 

7I6.  17  gi8  129). — r\i2Dn  nN->],  as  Sieg.  observes,  is  a  phrase  peculiar  to 
Qoh.,  cf.  212  913  and  nin^  n^n  nN->,  Je.  2^K  PL  observes  that  n::^^  and  p>i 
correspond  respectively  to  ethical  and  speculative  knowledge. — 17.  McN. 

(pp.  57,  156)  suspects  P>i^ nj.-^Ni  to  be  a  corruption  introduced  into 

the  text  from  (^.  It  is  omitted  in  a  number  of  MSS.  of  Ci,  but  that 
seems  a  slender  basis  on  which  to  discard  it.  Its  omission,  as  he  admits,, 
may  have  been  accidental. — ■"•^?^'J  is  one  of  the  three  instances  of  ivaw 
consecutive  with  imper.,  which  occur  in  this  book.  The  others  are 
ch.  41-  7  (cf.  Dr.  §133).  Del.  notes  that  the  ending  n.,  as  in  Gn.  32^ 
41",  expresses  the  writer's  purpose  (cf.  Ko.  §20ob).  Zap.  and  Ha. 
omit  nVjU'i  nSSn  r>ni  on  metrical  grounds.  Gins,  omits  .■ii':'Oi;'i  n'^'^n, 
believing  that  they  crept  in  through  a  transcriber's  carelessness,  because 
in  the  next  vs.  only  n>m  n::Dn  are  mentioned.  Gr.  emends  P^'^^n  to 
mSr?:,  "proverbs,"  on  the  ground  that  ^  and  Targ.  so  render  it.  (It 
might  be  added  that  ^  and  iC  also  so  translate.)  He  then  takes  niS3t:*= 
"intelligence,"  comparing  Pr.  i«  Ps.  78^  and  BS.  3"  392.  The  omis- 
sions of  Zap.,  Ha.  and  Gins,  are  not  justified  by  the  reasons  urged,  while 
Gr.'s  emendation  is  unnecessary.  All  the  versions,  as  Eur.  has  pointed 
out,  go  back  to  MT.  Most  recent  interpreters  have  rightly  taken  ni^jr 
to  be  a  variant  spelling  of  ."nSDD="  folly,"  which  occurs  in  2'-  '2.  13  -25 
io»  13  (so  Dat.,  Kn.,  Del.,  Wr.,  Wild.,  VI.,  McX.  BDB.  Ges.^" )— a 
variant  which  is  parallelled  by  ."'nicrc  for  the  usual  pncDri  in  ch.12". 
This  spelling  antedated  the  versions  and  was  misunderstood  by  them, 
though  many  MSS.  actually  have  nSro  (cf.  Ken.). — r\';'^\^].  Del.  and  VI. 
regard  ny^  as  an  inf.  for  py"'^,  '^  being  omitted  because  expressed  with 
the  preceding  inf.,  and  so  the  Massorets  took  it,  but  as  Gins,  and  McN. 
note,  it  should  with  ^  and  (H  be  taken  as  a  noun  and  pointed  ry^v 
"Wisdom  and  knowledge"  balance  "madness  and  folly." — ."f'^Sn]. 
Probably  to  be  read  niS*?.-!  (cf.  ch.  lo'^  also  BDB.  and  Ko.  §262d),  is 
from'?''n,Ar./ta//a,  to  "shout,"  "rage"  (so  Del.  and  BDB.),  is  peculiar 
in  BH.  to  Q.'s  vocabulary  (cf.  2*2  725  93  ioi3)  =  "folly."  Probably  as 
iQi^  and  the  fact  that  in  2^2  and  725  (g  renders  it  in  the  sing.,  shows  the 
ending  is  n\  an  abstract,  and  not  n\  a  plural  of  intensity  (VI.).  Ty. 
and  Sieg.  contend  that  it  is  a  Graecism= /iai/ia,  but  such  an  assumption 
seems  unwarranted. —  DiV  is  not  necessarily  a  late  expression.  Cf. 
Dyc'2  in  J.,  Gn.  6^. — xin  n?],  xin  is  used  frequently  in  Q.  as  a  copula. 
In  Mishna  it  is  frequently  abbreviated  to  mr  (cf.  Dr.  §201  (3),  and 
Da.  §106,  rem.  2). —  V>"^]  is  a  variant  formation  to  m""'  (cf.  v.  14),  with 
the  same  meaning.  Cf.  p^::!  and  rici  from  the  stem  non, — 18.  D;'r]. 
<i,  iC,  ^^,  A,  read  D}n  =  yvQa-Ls,  instead.  This  fact  has  caused  some 
discussion  among  scholars,  but  probably  all  of  the  three  latter  versions 
are  dependent  upon  CI,  and  its  reading  as  Eur.  suggests  was  a  lapsus 
calami. — D;*3="  vexation,"  a  word  in  Heb.  found  from  the  D.  literature 
onward.     It  also  occurs  frequently  in  the  Mishna  (cf.  Ja.).     It  occurs 


88  ECCLESIASTES 

several  times  in  Q.  (c/.  2^3  79  iii").  In  the  book  of  Job  it  is  spelled 
t'-;D  (see  Job  52  6^  lo^^  17').— n^dr]  Hit.,  Wr.,  No.,  VI.  and  Ko.  §3440 
take  it  as  a  part.  Some  regard  it  as  a  pure  Kal.,  misspelled  for  IDV 
others  as  a  Hiph.,  "returning  to  a  Kal."  Del.,  however,  regards  it  as 
a  regular  imperf.  The  latter  is  the  preferable  view.  The  sentence  is 
similar  to  Prov.  1 2^7   1822. 

2'.  "'js  >nncN],  The  ^jn  is  pleonastic,  as  was  the  ''JN  of  i>«.  Heng. 
claims  that  it  is  emphatic,  but  most  scholars  take  the  opposite  view 
(c/".  Gins.,  Zo.,  and  Da.  §107,  rem.  i). — "' 3 '^ 3]  is  a  variant  of  the  expression 
•"J*?  D",  1 18.  For  parallel  usage  see  the  citations  made  there.  The  rest 
of  the  vs.  shows  that  Q.  was  not  saying  in  his  heart,  but  talking  to  his 
heart,  for  he  addresses  to  it  an  exhortation.  (See  BDB.) — noDjNJ  has  oc- 
casioned much  discussion.  The  Targ.  and  Mid.,  which  Bick.  follows, 
evidently  read  n:p5X  =  "I  will  test  it;"  II  made  it  a  Ni.  of  HDj,  "to  pour 
out."  AE.  took  it  from  "iDj  and  supposed  that  "wine"  was  to  be  sup- 
plied as  an  object.  Most  modern  interpreters  follow  (&  and  take  it 
from  nDj  =  "to  test,"  regarding  the  n^  as  a  strengthened  form  of  ^i, 
Wr.  observes  that  the  verb  is  used  with  2  of  instrumentality  (cf.  ch.  7" 
I  K.  iQi).  Wr.  also  observes  with  justice  that  the  longer  n^  is  used  (i) 
to  make  the  suffix  more  distinct  in  words  ending  in  T]  as  n33X  (2  S.  2^); 
(2)  to  lengthen  in  writing  shorter  words,  as  noN3  (Gn.  lo'^);  and  (3) 
less  frequently  in  longer  v/ords,  as  here,  where  the  usage  perhaps  marks 
a  later  date. — 3  nsn]  the  Hebrews  used  words  which  describe  the  action 
of  the  primary  senses  in  a  figurative  way.  nxn  means  in  such  uses  "to 
experience,"  and  is  applied  to  the  whole  gamut  of  experiences  from 
life  (2''\~',  ch.  9^)  to  death  (t\M2,  Ps.  89^^).  For  some  of  these  see  ch.  2^* 
313  517  816  99  Ps.  1610  858  89^9  Job  925  Is.  44I6  La.  31.  'Ideiv  and  its 
synonyms  are  similarly  used  in  the  NT.  (cf.  Lk.  22*  Jn.  3^6  S^').  Fre- 
quently, as  here,  3  follows  hni  (cf.  Gn.  21I6  4434  Je.  29^2  Job  3^).  An 
examination  of  these  passages  will  confirm  the  justice  of  the  observa- 
tion of  Kn.  and  Wr.  that  those  who  hold  that  '3  hni  denotes  enjoyment,  are 
quite  mistaken.  It  is  used  for  any  experience,  pleasurable  or  otherwise. — 
2.  SSnr]  is  a  Poal  part.  =  "mad,"  cf.  Ps.  1029.  The  Hithpoal  means 
"to  act  like  a  madman,"  cf.  1  S.  211^  Je.  251^  469  50^8  51"  Na.  2^. 
The  versions,  except  iC,  render  incorrectly. —  rir  is  a  fern.,  a  shorter  way 
of  writing  .-"N";  so  Heil.,  Zo.,  Del.,  Wr.,  No.  and  Ko.  §§44,  45/3.  It  is 
also  found  in  51*  723  913.  As  Del.  noted,  the  use  of  ht  in  Q.  resembles 
that  of  the  Mishna  (cf.  also  Introduction,  §10).  This  form  occurs, 
however,  in  earlier  Heb.,  cf.  2  K.  6i9,  and  Ez.  40^*.  The  form  of  the 
question  is  identical  with  that  in  Gn.  313. —  ntj'j?]  is  fern.  part.  Kal  agree- 
ing with  HT,  which  represents  nnni:'.  Hit.  supposed  that  some  word  like 
"•"ID  should  be  supplied  after  it,  but  it  seems  to  be  used  as  in  Dn.  8"^* 
in  the  meaning  of  "accomplish  a  purpose."  Kn.  compared  it  with 
Ju.  1315  and    Ez.   28^  where  definite   objects  follow  it. — 3.  T'^'c]-     I^ 


QOHELETH'S    EXPERIMENTS     [Ch.  V^2^^  89 

favor  of  taking  this  to  mean  "refresh,"  Del.  recalls  Khagiga,  14a: 
D"'D3QiN  Sc'  ^2'?  JOC'ID  N1JN  ^■^•;2.  The  reading  of  CI,  KaTeaKexf/d/x-nv  ei  i} 
Kap5ia  fwv  i\Kij<rei,  may,  as  McN.  has  noted,  indicate  that  the  original 
Heb.  read  liU'D  •'a'?a  "'JN  "-nnp),  the  ""JN  becoming  corrupted  to  on.  d's 
reading  may,  however,  be  a  corruption  of  'A,  S  and  9's  iv  r^  Kapdig.,  etc. 
The  unanimity  of  reading  in  MSS.  of  (B  is  in  favor  of  the  former  view. — 
fo]  (S  and  0  read  ]'>^d.  Ha.,  for  metrical  reasons,  regards  it  as  a  gloss. 
r\:2Dn2  jnj  >3Vi]  is,  for  the  same  reason,  rejected  by  him  as  a  gloss. —  Jij] 
ordinarily  means  "  lead  "  or  "  drive,"  as  in  i  S.  302"  Is.  1 1^  Ps.  80^  La.  32  Ct. 
8^,  but  here,  as  McN.  has  pointed  out,  the  meaning  is  much  more  nearly 
akin  to  the  Mishna  (cf.  Ahoda  Zara,  3^).  It  means  (5DB.)  "behaving 
itself,"  to  "be  practised  in"  (Ja.),  or  "act."  rnN^?-!]  like  niC'O^  is  an  in- 
direct object  of  iin. — ni'?DD]  describes  a  course  which  seems  reasonable, 
but  which  turns  out  to  be  unwise  {cf.  Gn.  3128  i  S.  13'^  2  S.  2410  Is. 
4425),  not  absolute  folly.  The  root,  spelled  with  a  2,  occurs  in  this  sense 
in  the  code  of  Hammurabi  {cf.  Zikilta,  Code  XXIII,  39).  In  late  Heb. 
the  Hith.  means  "be  confused"  {cf.  Ja.  991").  Q.  determined  to  ex- 
plore the  courses  of  life  which  men  counted  foolish,  to  see  whether  there 
might  not  be  some  good  there. — ht  "-n]  here  means  "what"  (Ko.  §§  70 
and  414m).  It  introduces  an  indirect  question. — nfjD::]  is  an  ace.  of  time 
(Ko.  §33 la).  It  denotes  what  one  can  number  and  so  comes  to  mean 
"few"  {cf  Gn.  3430  Dt.  4^^  Is.  iqi^  Ps.  10512  Job  1622).— -\-^\s  ■.;; 
is  in  one  MS.  pointed  nrs  n;:,  cf.  Baer,  niSj::,  p.  61. — 21:3],  0  renders 
rd  (TJjfjLcpopov.  Ty.  notes  that  "good"  was  the  great  object  of  the  search 
of  both  Stoicism  and  Epicureanism,  and  finds  in  this  expression  evi- 
dence of  Greek  influence  upon  Q.  But  see  Introduction,  §6  (2). — 
D^cc-'.-iJCI,^  and  ^  read  rcrn. — 4.  D>n3]  battTm,notbotttm.  It  is  frequently 
pointed  with  Metheg,  as  Baer  and  Dr.  point  it  in  this  passage,  to  insure 
the  pronunciation.  Cf.  Ges.^^-  §16,  2/ — 5.  ]:!]  is  derived  from  the  ";", 
stem  pj,  "to  protect"  {cf  Is.  315). — Di-(d]  occurs  but  twice  outside  Qoh. 
in  BH.,  Ct.  4'3,  where  we  have  the  sing.  Dins  and  Ne.  2^,  where  we  have 
D7.">on.  It  is  Persian  and  occurs,  my  colleague,  Professor  Collitz,  in- 
forms me,  in  the  Avesta  {Vendidad,  3,  18  (58),  and  5,  49  (145),  as  pairi- 
dieza,  composed  of  pairi^Gv.  irepl,  and  dieza^Gr.  roixos,  "wall." 
In  Pers.  it  means,  according  to  Bartholomae  {AUiranisches  Worter- 
buch,  col.  865),  "Umwallung,"  or  "circumvallation,"  according  to 
Darmsteter,  "enclosure."  It  came  into  Gr.  as  irapadcKros and  into  Heb. 
as  Oi'\Q.  It  also  found  its  way  into  Semitic  Babylonian  {cf.  Strass- 
maier's  Cyrus,  No.  212,  3),  into  Aramaic,  Arabic  and  Armenian.  In 
the  Mishna  {Arakin,  32),  the  pi.  is  niDinij  instead  of  D-iDiiD  as  here. — 
6.  n'^Dns]  is  constr.  of  ^p"!}?,  which  in  BH.  is  frequently  used  for  "pool" 
or  "  reservoir."  It  also  occurs  in  the  Siloam  inscr.,  1.  5.  nionn  is  different 
in  form  from  mo"?3,  the  constr.  of  ^}1}<  "blessing."  Graetz,  recalling 
the  facts  that  Solomon  and  Herod  were  the  two  great  builders  among 


90  ECCLESIASTES 

Israel's  kings,  and  that  Herod  built  reservoirs,  uses  this  allusion  as  an 
argument  for  the  Herodian  date  of  the  book. — an.]  is  omitted  by  Ha. 
on  account  of  the  metrical  exigency.  no-)3  is,  it  is  true,  usually  not  fol- 
lowed by  0''n  in  BH.,  but  Nah.  2^  presents  a  parallel  in  favor  of  the  pres- 
ent reading. — onr.]  is  used  after  m3"]3  for  jnr?.  There  is  considerable 
inaccuracy  in  BH.  as  to  the  agreement  in  gender  in  such  cases.  Cf. 
Ges.''^-  §  145U.  See  also  below  on  2^°. — Di'iy]  is  ace.  after  the  intrans. 
npix.  Cf.  Ges.K-  §11  yy. — 7.  njp],  "  to  gain  possession  of, "  was  used  with 
']0D2  for  "buying"  {e.g.,  Am.  8"  Is.  43^^),  and  then  came  to  rnean  "buy" 
when  used  without  103  (cf.  On.  391  4723  Ex.  211  2  S.  12^,  etc.). — no  ■•jj] 
are  slaves  born  of  slaves  already  in  the  master's  possession  (cf.  On. 
152).  The  usual  expression  for  this  is  no  n-'^''  See  Gn.  141^  1712.  is. 
23-  27  and  Je.  2". — n>n  no  "^12]  is  a  phrase  with  a  pi.  sub.  and  a  sing.  pred. 
Ty.  thought  the  expression  a  collective,  but  Ges.^-  (§i45u)  and  Ko. 
(§349g)  explain  it  better  as  a  case  where  the  sing,  dependent  gen.  has 
attracted  the  verb  to  its  number.  One  MS.  has  corrected  to  vn  (cf 
Dr.). — n^pr]  was  read  as  a  const.  n:pp  by  (I,  6,  ffi  and  #.  On  the 
pointing  njpD,  see  Baer,  Mg.,  p.  61.  Buxtorf  and  Dr.,  in  their 
editions,  point  is  as  a  constr.,  and  Wild,  so  regards  it.  The  analogy 
of  Gn.  261^  and  2  Ch.  322^  favors  this  view.  No.,  Wr.,  VI.  and  Ko. 
(§3330)  explain  n^pp  as  absol.  and  -ip2  and  |xx  as  appositives  of 
nearer  definition.  Cf.  Ges.^-  §i27h. —  n3-\-i]  is  in  one  source  pointed 
n3-in.     See  Baer,  Mg.,  p.  61. — ^>r\\^]  is  read  n^^rtv^'  by  87  MSS.     Cf.  Dr. 

oS'irno Sdd]  Bick.  and  Zap.  omit  for  metrical  reasons.     Ha.  goes 

still  further,  arbitrarily  reducing  the  original  verse  to  7a.  The  reference 
to  cattle  and  predecessors  was  in  his  view  a  gloss  which  reached  its  present 
form  by  the  addition  of  two  glosses. — 8.  ''nD^^].  Kn.'s  contention  that  DJ3 
means  "collect"  only  in  late  Heb.  will  hardly  stand.  Even  its  mean- 
ing in  Is.  282"  may  be  explained  as  a  derivative  of  this  meaning,  as  also 
the  derived  noun  in  Lv.  16^.  The  root  is  found  in  all  the  Semitic  lan- 
guages. In  Heb.,  Aram.,  Syr.  and  Eth.  it  means  to  "collect,"  "assemble," 
etc.,  while  the  meanings  in  Ar.  ("to  lie  down  in  a  lair")  and  As. 
("submit")  probably  go  back  to  this  primitive  meaning.  (S^^  reads 
Kal  ye  xP'^o'to".  McN.  suggests  that  the  original  text  may  have  been 
3nt  DJ. — 'I'^.^d]  denotes  a  "treasure,"  or  "precious  treasure"  (cf.  Ex. 
19*  Mai.  3'^).  In  the  Targ.  it  denotes  "investments,"  "heirlooms," 
"treasures"  (cf  Ja.).  In  As.  its  pi.  sugullati  means  "herds."  Hit. 
compares  the  Ar.  shaghl,  "work,"  holding  that  n'^\D  means  that  which 
is  worked  upon,  and  so  "valuable,"  "precious."  It  is  doubtful,  how- 
ever, whether  Chain  is  an  equivalent  of  J. —  nimnn],  the  article  here  is 
peculiar  in  view  of  the  fact  that  do'^d  is  undefined.  Gr.  thought  that 
some  word  had  fallen  out  of  the  text  adducing  nrnp  •'apf  a  (Dn.  ii*<) 
as  a  suggestive  parallel,  but  as  Ty.  long  ago  noted,  ch.  725  affords  an 
example  of  the  introduction  of  an  article  in  a  somewhat  similar  way,  and 


QOHELETH'S    EXPERIMENTS     [Ch.  l'^22«  91 

makes  it  probable  that  mn::  is  gen.  after  rhiD  in  spite  of  the  article. 
njnc  itself,  although  it  occurs  once  as  early  as  i  K.  20",  is  an  Aram, 
word,  from  |n.  Its  primary  meaning  is  "place  of  judgment,"  but  it 
is  used  in  the  sense  of  "province"  {cf.  BBB.  Est.  i^-  3-  22  ^12.  u  La.  i^- 
Ne.  i3  ii3  Dn.  8^  ii2^,  etc.).  Bick.  (p.  10)  rejects  the  words  nSjDi 
monr:n  as  a  gloss,  because  the  exigencies  of  his  metrical  theory  de- 
mand it. —  niJij"r]  occurs  in  Mi.  2'  Pr.  191"  and  BS.  41'  in  the  sense  of 
"  pleasures,"  "  luxuries."  With  this  the  Talmudic  usage  corresponds,  cf. 
.BDB.,  Ja.,  sub  voce. — nnch  mr]  the  sing,  of  a  word  followed  by  its  pi. 
or  masc.  followed  by  fem.  is  used  to  denote  totality,  cf.  Ges.^^-  §i22v  and 
K6.  §91.  As  to  the  meaning  of  these  words  the  greatest  diversity  of 
opinion  has  prevailed.  (B  and  9  read  oivox^ov  kuI  olvoxoas,  "male 
and  female  cupbearers" — (i.e.,  nnun  rtyz',  cf.  sub.  voce)  a  reading  sup- 
ported by  %,  &  and  K.  'A.  read  kvXLkiov  Kai  /cuXiVta,  "a  cup  and  cups." 
Similarly  T§  rendered  "scyphos  et  urceos  in  ministerio  ad  vina  fun- 
denda."  According  to  Jer.,  S  read  "mensarum  species  et  apposi- 
tiones."  01  rendered  "-lo-cn  N"*;:  piri  ]OTn::i  mirfj  N"'D  ]'''i'yi  rar-^D,  i.e., 
"  tubes  (siphons  ?)  which  pour  forth  cold  water  and  tubes  which  pour 
forth  hot  water."  The  ancients  accordingly  understood  the  word  to 
refer  to  the  pleasures  of  the  table  in  some  way.  Among  modern  in- 
terpreters Dat.  supports  this  view.  According  to  Gins.,  Ibn  Melech 
interpreted  the  words  to  mean  "^dt.  ^^;),  in  which  he  was  followed  by  Luther 
and  AV.  in:  "musical  instruments  and  that  of  all  sorts."  Dale,  among 
recent  interpreters,  still  holds  to  this.  Ew.  and  Zo.  derive  the  root  from 
a  word  meaning  "mass,"  "heap,"  and  render  "a  heap  and  heaps." 
Heng.  and  Re.  connect  it  with  Ar.  root  shadda,  robur,  vehementia,  and 
render  "plenty  of  all  sorts."  Ra.,  whom  Gr.  follows,  makes  it  refer  to 
sedan-chairs.  Most  modern  scholars  take  the  words  to  refer  to  a  harem 
and  as  completing  the  meaning  niJij;*n,  which  is  thought  to  refer  to 
sexual  pleasures  (so  Dod.,  Mic,  Kn.,  Hit.,  Heil.,  Vaih.,  Wang., 
Ty.,  Gins.,  No.,  VI.,  Wr.,  PL.  Eur.,  Wild.,  Sieg.,  McN.,  Gen.,  Marsh, 
and  Ha.),  though  they  differ  as  to  the  root  from  which  it  should  be 
derived.  Some  connect  it  with  sadda,  "to  hide,"  supposing  it  to  be  an 
appropriate  reference  to  oriental  women.  Others,  as  Hit.,  derive  it 
from  sanada,  "to  lean  upon";  so  they  suppose  it  to  mean  "bed,"  and 
hence  "concubine."  Others  (e.g.,  Olshausen)  derive  it  from  sid  (Heb. 
i^r,  "demon,"  As.  'sidu,  "bull-deity"),  which  in  Ar.  not  only  means 
"demon"  (Spanish  Cid),  but  also  "lord,"  and  5a;y>'zc?a^,  "lady"  (modern 
Ar.  silti).  (In  Talmud  Babli,  Gittin,  78a,  it  is  said  that  in  Palestine 
the  word  was  understood  to  mean  chests,  or  sedan-chairs,  but  in  Baby- 
lon, demons,  both  male  and  female.)  Ros.  and  Marsh,  connect  it  with 
"^t',  "the  breast,"  and  so  reached  the  meaning  "female,"  while  Wr.  and 
others  derive  it  with  more  probability  from  "»ti:*.  As.  'sadddu,  "to  love." 
Dr.  (Kittel's  Bib,  Heb.,  p.  ii37n)  supposes  the  original  reading  to  have 


92 


ECCLESIASTES 

been  nni^i  nnr,  "a  princess  and  princesses,"  a  view  which  BDB. 
also  shares.  Though  the  etymology  is  obscure,  the  connection  demands 
the  meaning  "mistress"  or  "concubine."  In  picturing  the  life  of  one 
who,  like  Solomon,  tasted  all  pleasures  to  the  full,  the  luxuries  of  the 
harem  would  surely  not  be  omitted.  Zap.  and  Ha.  omit  nnc'i  n^v  on 
metrical  grounds,  without  sufficient  reason. — 9.  '•nijDini  ^nSnji],  see 
comment  on  i»«  and  cf.  K6.  §§  37of  and  371b,  d,  and  Ges.^-  §i2od. 
Sieg.  emends  the  text  to  "'tryo  TsDini  ^nViJi,  supposing  that  ^r^oon 
must  have  an  object,  but  as  Del.  had  observed  its  object  is  an  implied 
nS^J  understood  from  "TiSiJ. — h"*.}]  is  used  of  one  who  increases  in 
wealth,  cf.  Gn.  243^  26>3  i  K.  lo^s  and  Job  i^.  On  tiN]="also,"  cf. 
Ko.  §37 id.  in>']  has  the  meaning  "remain,"  see  Is.  4712  Je.  48" 
Ps.  I0227.  Most  modern  exegetes  so  render  it  here.  Herz,  Ew.,  Elst. 
and  Gins,  follow  an  explanation  of  Ra.'s  which  takes  the  word  in  the 
sense  of  "  assist."  This  is  not  so  probable. — 10.  iSsr]  S  happily  renders 
iTTLdvuriaav.  Cf.  for  similar  meaning  Dt.  1426. — one]  occurs  instead  of 
jnc.  As  Del.  noted  this  has  resulted  from  the  transfer  of  the  inaccuracies 
of  the  common  spoken  language  to  literature,  cf.  Gn.  2615  31'  321* 
Job  i'^  Ges.J^  §1350  and  Ko.  §14.  Cases  of  faulty  agreement  not 
strictly  parallel  to  this  also  occur  in  Zc.  41"  and  Ct.  4^. — pjc]  frequently 
takes  the  ace.  of  the  thing  and  the  gen.  (  p)  of  the  person,  but  that  con- 
struction is  reversed  here  as  in  Gn.  30^  and  Nu.  24". — nai:']  is  rarely  used 
with  p;  when  it  is,  jr  denotes  the  source  of  the  joy,  cf.  Pr.  5I8  2  Ch.  20". 
Gr.  believed  that  the  original  reading  was  nnu'^  the  ''  being  omitted 
because  of  the  "  of  ""^S.  (g^  155.  253.  254  and  2%  reads  ivcpovvrjs  fiov= 
"my  mirth"  for  r\i2Z\  The  /aou  is  probably  a  corruption,  introduced 
because  it  occurs  so  many  times  in  the  passage. — pSn],  cf.  on  322.  Ha. 
omits  '''7D]?  S^D  n):a>  o*?  ••d  and  So  before  the  last  ''^'OV  on  account  of  the 
supposed  exigencies  of  his  metrical  arrangement. — 11.  njij]  is  usually 
followed  by  Sn,  but  here  and  in  Job  628  by  2.  In  Is.  821  nSpnS  nj3  is  used 
for  "look  upward."  Hit.  urges  that  the  analogy  of  vs.  12  would  lead  us . 
to  supply  niN">V  after  njs  here. — ''js],  the  pleonastic  use  of  this  pron. 
after  verbs  is  peculiar  to  Qoh.  Cf.  Da.  §107,  rem.  i.  On  the  phrases 
n"»  ■'{:'>*u>  v^j'yo  and  >nS?:yi:'  So',   cf.    Ko.   §329d.     On  the    inf.    nic'^'S, 

cf.   Gn.    2'   Jo.    220   and    Ko.   §4020.      Ha.   omits    n*" hz2    and 

nn  niV">i  for  his  metrical  arrangement. 

12.  D^N^np].  <g  has  t^s  aj/^/3fa>7ros  =  ois  ^t:;  McN.  thinks  this  was 
the  reading  before  Aqiba,  and  to  which  Gr.  would  emend  the  text. 
Most  of  the  Vrss.  favor  nr,  which  makes  better  sense. — iScn].  /SouXiJ 
in  (S  and  S  is  a  rendering  of  the  Aram.  ^Sd  for  ^\r;,  cf.  Dn.  42^  The 
clause  has  been  variously  understood  and  rendered.  Ty.  and  PI.  re- 
gard the  expression  as  proverbial,  which  Ty.  thinks  would  account  for 
the  elliptical  omission  of  nry"*  after  dinh.  Hit.  and  Heng.  take  the  ques- 
tion to  refer  to  the  king's  successor,  and  Hit.  emends   imr;^  to  the  inf. 


QOHELETH'S    EXPERIMENTS     [Ch.  1 '2-226  g^^ 

•'in^i:';\  In  substance  the  question  on  this  view  becomes  "What  can 
the  king's  successor  do?  That  which  he  (the  king)  already  is  doing." 
Del.,  Wr.,  and  Ha.  render:  "What  shall  the  man  do  who  comes  after 
the  king  whom  they  long  ago  made?"  believing  on  the  basis  of  i  Ch. 
2922  that  Israelites  could  believe  that  Solomon  had  been  made  king  by 
the  people.  This  rendering  seems  harsh  and  unnatural.  Sieg.  trans- 
poses the  two  halves  of  the  vs.,  so  as  to  connect  the  question:  "What 
can  the  man  do,"  etc.,  with  the  statement  of  vs.  11  that  all  is  vanity, 
nj-:]  is  omitted  by  <S,  ^h  ^^  e  and  B,  and  should  probably  be  dropped 
from  the  text.  QI  and  Biresh.  Rah.  are  the  only  ancient  authori- 
ties which  support  MT.  Dr.  notes  that  for  inir;',  68  MSS.,  (S^, 
#  and  B  read  -inc*;;.  The  text  adopted  in  the  above  rendering  is,  there- 
fore, ^r\t";  nu-N  nx  ^':'?:^  >"^nN  ni3v^  r\t-;>  onsn  n::.     Ha.  omits  onsn  and 

•"'■"'"''^'j^- I'^'^n  for  metrical  reasons.— 13.    I'nn^r]  of  Walton's  Pol.  and  of 

Hahn  is  pointed  inn.--^  by  Baer  and  Dr.  For  the  reasons,  see  Baer, 
Megilloth,  p.  61,  and  for  analogies,  Je.  2536  Ps.  4513  and  Pr.  30»7.  See 
also  Ges.K-  §24e.     Zap.  and  Ha.,  in  view  of   their  conceptions  of  the 

metre,  reject  '\t'T\r\ pino  as  a  gloss — a  view  which  we  cannot  share. — 

pjon  p  in  comparisons,  see  Ges.^-  1133b.— 14.  That  Sieg.  regards  14a 
as  a  gloss  has  been  treated  under  vs.  13.—  dj].  Kn.,  Gins,  and  Zo.  take  this 
in  an  adversative  sense,  but  as  Del.,  Wr.,  and  VI.  note,  if  it  were  ad- 
versative, it  should  come  at  the  beginning  of  the  sentence.  The  real 
adv.  particle  here  is  v— inN]  is  used,  as  several  times  in  Qoh.,  in  the 
sense  of  "the  same,"  cf.  319-  20  56  92.  3  12". — mpD]  from  nnp,  "to  hap- 
pen," "befall"  {cf.  Gn.  4429),  means  "chance"  or  "accident,"  as  in 
I  S.  2o26  Ru.  23,  and  then  passes  to  the  meaning  of  "fate,"  SDB.  (i  S. 
6'  Qoh.  2»-  15  319  92.  3).  Vv.  15-17  show  that  it  refers  to  death  or 
oblivion.  Sieg.  considers  it  a  Grgecism,  but,  as  McN.  notes,  its  use  in 
I  S.  69  proves  that  it  has  good  Hebrew  precedent. — Sdh],  literally,  "the 
whole,"  but  used  of  two  things,  it  is  equivalent  to  "both,"  cf.  ch.  319.  20 

6«   715   9I.  2   jol9, 

15.  nnpcr].  Baer  points  this  as  though  in  st.  abs.,  claiming  (p.  61) 
that  the  authority  of  the  Massora  for  this  is  quite  clear.  But  most  mod- 
ern editors,  including  5DB.,  Dr.,  point  as  constr.  n-^p?:. —  ^jn  dj],  thisis 
an  emphatic  expression.  The  emphasis  is  obtained  by  the  anticipation 
of  the  suffix  in  >jn,  cf  Gn.  2427  Ez.  2)i"  2  Ch.  28'",  and  for  a  kindred 
use,  Nu.  1432  and  i  K.  2ii9;  also  Ges.K  §1356  and  Ko.  §19.— -ini  tn], 
the  phrase  has  occasioned  much  difficulty  both  in  ancient  and  modern 
times.  Tvx  is  omitted  by  (gees*  (^nd  several  cursives).  0,  B  and  2C, 
followed  by  Gr.,  omit  it  as  without  meaning,  (g^'^^acv supports  MT., 
and  most  modern  scholars  adhere  to  MT.,  although  Kn.  changed  it  to  IN. 
They  differ,  however,  in  their  interpretations  of  it.  Zo.  and  No.  take  it  to 
refer  to  the  moment  of  death;  thenwisdova  will  avail  nothing.  Del.  says 
it  may  be  either  a  temporal  or  a  logical  "then."     Wild,  takes  it  in  the 


94 


ECCLESIASTES 

logical  sense,  while  Gins,  regards  it  as  introducing  the  apodosis.  Ko. 
§3731  takes  it  temporally,  citing  as  parallels  Ju.  58  i  K.  9"  Mi.  3* 
Ps.  408  ^6^°  Ct.  811.  Our  passage  seems  to  differ  from  these,  and  I  in- 
cline to  agree  with  Gins,  and  Wild.,  and  take  it  as  a  logical  "  then,"  intro- 
ducing a  conclusion. — nn'^l  has  also  been  variously  treated.  BDB., 
and  most  recent  interpreters,  take  it  as  an  adverb  as  in  7I6  la^.  This 
is  probably  right,  though  Dale  would  correct  to  nn?,  and  Winckler  (AOF. 
IV,  351),  who  is  followed  by  Sieg.  and  Dr.,  would  correct  to  ^rTT-i  rx, 
comparing  vs.  3. — hdS].  Del.  and  Wr.  point  out  that  r\^h  in  a  question  asks 
after  the  object  or  design,  while  JJ-na  asks  for  the  reason  of  the  object. 
Ha.,  for  metrical  reasons,  omits  ^jn  d:i  and  0S3  as  glosses.— 16.  pn^r] 
for  the  form,  see  on  i^.  ri<].  Winckler  {AOF.,  IV,  351)  corrects  to 
IN,  but  as  McN.  has  said,  it  is  unnecessary.  A  better  sense  is  obtained 
as  the  text  stands. — d;],  lit.  "with,"  is  used  in  comparisons;  so,  Hit., 
Heil.,  Gr.,  Del.,  Wr.,  Gins.,  No.,  VI.  Compare  ch.  711  Job  9^6  37I8 
Ps.  885,  also  BDB.  768a,  and  Ko.  §3751.-1301^0  is  a  compound  ex- 
pression.— -C'ajis  equivalent  to  nc'N2,  "inasmuch"  or  "because,"  BDB., 
cf.  Gn.  399-  23  and  Ko.  §3896. — t}  is  compounded  as  in  post-Bib. 
Heb.  (cf.  above  Introd.  §io£).  ^3^]  means  "already,"  see  on  ii". 
As  McN.  remarks,  Q.  puts  himself  at  the  point  of  view  of  future  days  and 
looks  backward. — Q-^a^n  D>D""n]  is  ace.  of  time,  cf.  Ges.^-  §ii8i,  and  Je. 
2816. — S5n]  refers  here  to  persons,  as  in  Ps.  14^  For  the  meaning 
"both,"  see  on  2^K — r\:)V:]  may  in  form  be  either  the  perf.  or  a  part. 
Gins,  takes  it  as  a  part.,  but  it  is  better  to  regard  it  as  a  perf.  used  to 
express  the  future  perfect,  cf.  Da.  §4i(c).— l^x],  though  sometimes 
interrogative  as  in  i  S.  162,  is  here  exclamatory  as  in  Is.  14^  Ez.  26" 
La.  iS  etc. — 17.  Sy  jj"^],  as  Delitzsch  pointed  out,  is  a  late  expression 
parallel  to  S37  2it3  of  Es.  3'  and  the  similar  expression  in  Ps.  166.  It  is 
an  idiom  found  in  the  Mishna,  see  Pirke  Aboth,  2^°-  '^  and  412.  Hit. 
endeavors  to  explain  the  prep,  in  hy  y•^  as  "unto,"  and  Gins,  as  "upon," 
denoting  the  resting  of  a  burden  upon  one.  Hit.  cites  Job  lo^  and  Ps. 
425-  6  in  support  of  his  view,  and  Gins.,  Is.  i'^  Job  720  Qoh.  6'  8^  in 
support  of  his.  Possibly  it  originated  in  the  view  Gins,  advocates,  but 
it  has  become  simply  a  late  usage. —  nc^yc]  may  refer  to  cosmic  activity 
as  in  i9,  or  to  human  activities  as  in  i". —  m-)  mpni].  Gr.  would  emend 
to  nn  njm,  on  the  ground  that  the  verse  refers  to  the  world-order,  and 
it  is  unfitting  to  say  that  it  is  desiring  wind. — This  is  unnecessary,  how- 
ever, since  Q.'s  complaint  is  that  the  cosmic  order,  which  dooms  the  wise 
to  oblivion  like  the  fool,  renders  the  efforts  of  man  toward  wisdom  a  de- 
sire of  wind. — 18.  h^jn]  Kn.  derived  from  n:\  but  most  recent  inter- 
preters have  correctly  observed  that  it  is  from  mj.  Cf.  p-idh  from  niD, 
Je.  3822. — nnN],  cf.  Ko.  §4iob.— 19.  DDnn],  the  -n  is  the  interrogative  par- 
ticle. It  is  used  with  ^n  in  double  questions.  The  more  common  par- 
ticles for  such  questions  are  dn -n,  but  the  combination  ix -n. 


QOHELETH'S  EXPERIMENTS    [Ch.  l'2-2'^6  95 

which  we  have  here,  occurs  several  times,  once  in  the  J.  document. 
C/.  Ju.  i8i9  2  K.  627  Ma.  i*  Job  i63  382*  and  Qoh.  ii^.  For  the  more 
usual  form  see  Gn,  2421  272',  etc.  Cf.  Ges.^-  §i5og  and  K6.  §379b. 
— Sod  ].  The  root,  spelled  with  a  z,  occurs,  as  noted  above,  in  this  sense 
in  the  form  Zakalu  in  the  code  of  Hammurabi,  col.  XXIII,  40. — toSr] 
occurs  in  BH.  only  in  late  compositions,  Ne.  Es.  Ps.  119133  and  Qoh. 
It  is  frequent  in  the  Aram,  portions  of  Daniel.  (gBANv  j-g^fj  ^i  i^oy. 
(nd^erai,  which  represents  iD^'cn  in  Heb.  Perhaps  as  McN.  thinks  this 
was  a  reading  before  the  time  of  Aqiba.  It  is  an  unnatural  reading, 
and  may  have  arisen  through  some  mistake. — SoD  in].  Ha.  regards  this  as 
a  gloss,  and  both  he  and  Zap.  reject  S^n  nr  dj)  as  a  stereotyped  insertion. 
These  supposed  glosses  are  in  the  interest  of  their  metrical  arrangement. 
— "TiDDnuh  "TiSDyU"]  is,  as  Zo.  and  Del.  have  noted,  a  hendiadys  for  "upon 
which  I  toiled  wisely." — 20.  "•ni^D  ].  Some  scholars  maintain  that  there 
is  a  distinction  between  22D  and  njs — that  the  former  means  "turn  to 
do,"  the  latter  "turn  to  see."  Del.  has  pointed  out,  however,  that  in 
Lv.  269  njD  means  "turn  to  do,"  while  in  Qoh.  725  22D  signifies  "turn  to 
see." — ^^l],  according  to  Baer,  should  be  pointed  Uii\  Dr.  so  points  it, 
and  the  reading  is  accepted  by  Ges.^-  §646.  The  form  is  a  Piel  inf. 
The  root  occurs  outside  of  this  passage  but  five  times  in  the  OT.  (i  S. 
271  Is.  57»''  Je.  225  igi2  Job  626),  and  always  in  the  Niphal.  The  Mishna 
has  the  Hithpael  of  the  root,  thus  vouching  for  its  use  in  the  Piel,  see 
Aboth,  i^,  and  Kelim,  26^. — SjDyn  Vd  S;'].  A  number  of  MSS.  of  (&  read  ^v 
ix6xd(^  IJ-ov  =  "'Scya.  TDir'n  nnn].  Ha.  rejects  this  as  a  gloss,  which  spoils  the 

symmetry  of  his  metrical  arrangement. — 21.  din mx]  is  a  balanced 

rhetorical  expression,  cf.  Ko.  §34. — tnc'7]  occurs  only  in  Qoh.,  here, 
and  in  4*  and  51".  Its  root  Ti>o  occurs  in  Es.  8*  Qoh.  iqi"  and  ii«, 
also  in  NH.  Aram,  and  Syr.  (5DB.  506b  and  Ja.  677b).  The  root 
means  "to  go  well,"  "prosper;"  and  the  noun,  "success." — ipSn]  is  taken 
by  No.  as  the  second  object  of  t"ij.  cf.  Ps.  2*,  Ges.^-  (§i3im)  takes  it 
as  an  appositive  to  the  preceding  suffix,  Ko.  (§3400)  regards  it  as  a 
predicate  ace.  ipSn  and  n2"\  nyn  Ha.  excises  so  that  the  verse  shall 
conform  to  his  metrical  conception. 

22.  np],  the  part,  of  nin,  occurs  elsewhere  in  Ne.  6«.  The  root.  Job  37*, 
has  the  meaning  "fall;"  in  Gn.  2729  Is.i  6^  Ne.  6«  and  Qoh.  ii^the  sense 
of  T\''n^  "be,"  which  it  has  here.  Ges.^"  (13th  ed.)  regards  nm,  "to 
fall,"  and  nin,  "to  be,"  as  different  roots,  butBDB.  is  probably  right  in 
connecting  them,  that  "which  occurs"  or  "falls  out, "  being  that  which  is. 
In  Aramaic  nin  and  rs^ry  occur  side  by  side  in  the  sense  of  "be"  (see 
Dalman,  Aram.  Gram.  §73,  and  Ja.,  p.  338).  nm  is  found  in  the  Aram, 
inscr.  of  Panammu  of  Zendjirli,  which  is  from  the  8th  cent.  {cf.  G.  A. 
Cooke,  North  Sem.  Inscr.,  pp.  172,  176).  Its  occurrence  in  Aram,  led 
Hit.,  No.  and  others  to  regard  it  as  an  Aramaism,  but  its  occurrence 
in  an  old  poem  in  Gn.  272^  indicates  that  in  Heb.  as  in  Aram,  it  was  at 


q5  ecclesiastes 

every  period  a  synonym  of  nvi-  This  usage  occurs  in  NH.  also,  c/. 
Aboth,  1*  and  2^,  and  for  the  idiopi  Ja.  sub  voce.  See  also  K6.  §326h. — 
For  D-'N'^]  (6  has  iv  rip  avdpibiri^.  Probably  there  was  a  pre-Aqiban  read- 
ing D-IN3. — p-'jn]  is  not  ni>'">.  but  probably  comes  from  the  same  root. 
BDB.  renders  it  "longing,"  "striving."  .  In  the  Tal.  it  means  "desire," 
"ambition,"  "greed"  {cf.  Ja.  sub  wee).— nvi:;]  was  read  Nin^  by  Ki. 
{cf.  Ges.K-  §36),  and  is  so  read  by  Baer,  Del.,  No.  and  VI.     Cf.  an:', 

ch.  3I8.     ^3  and  ti'Dtt'n Nin::']  Ha.'s  metrical  arrangement  leads  him 

to  reject  as  glosses. — 23.  vd>  So]  is  regarded  by  AE.,  Hit.,  Gr.,  Gins, 
and  McN.  as  ace.  of  time,  DONd::  being  taken  like  D>'3  as  a  pred.  of  l^jy. 
This  is  a  possible  construction.  Del.,  Wr.,  Sieg.,  Ha.  and  Ko.  {cf. 
§3o6r)  take  it  as  the  subj.  of  a  nominal  sentence,  of  which  dondd  is  the 
predicate. —  D'^nd^:].  Gins,  remarks  that  this  is  a  plural  used  to  express 
an  abstract  idea. —  D>:?i],  see  the  comment  on  ii^  and  for  rJ>'.  on  ii3.  Del. 
and  Wr.  note  that  the  pointing  of  waw  with  kamec  before  d;'3  is  done  be- 
cause D>'3  is  a  segholate,  having  its  accent  on  the  first  syllable,  thus  bring- 
ing the  vowel  of  1  into  an  open  syl.  before  the  tone.  For  similar  cases  see 
Lv.  i85  Is.  6517  and  Pr.  25^  The  sentence  which  begins  here  is  nom- 
inal and  its  pred.  is  for  emphasis  placed  first.  Cf.  Ko.  §338c. — 33^], 
literally  "lie  down,"  is  used  for  "sleep"  (Gn.  281'  Ju.  i63  and  i  S.  3"). 
The  rendering  "rest"  is  a  little  free,  but  gives  the  sense. — DJ].  H  read 
a  -1  before  the  last  DJ.  but  this  is  unsupported  by  the  other  versions. 
— 'I'^n  ni  Dj]  Zap.  erases  as  a  stereotyped  gloss,  which  disturbs  the 
metre,  but  Ha.  finds  it  necessary  to  the  metre  here. 

24.  Sieg.,  with  no  good  reason,  denies  the  last  clause  of  the  vs.  to 
Q.  It  is  thoroughly  consistent  with  the  point  of  view  of  such  a 
Jew  as  Q.  Sieg.  is  right  in  saying  that  in  Q.  2it3  and  n^ito  rarely 
denote  ethical  good  (as  in  720  12"),  but  "convenience,"  "satisfaction," 
as  in  2i-  26  312.  13.  22  46.  8  ^17  63.  9.  12  78.  26  812.  15  n?,  BT>B.  show  that 
they  seldom  have  ethical  meaning  in  OT.— Dixj]  is  a  corruption  from 
□iN*^,  for  that  is  the  reading  of  (S^ac^  ^  and  H,  and  the  construction 
in  612  and  8i». — SsN^r],  before  this  word  a  c  has  fallen  out.  Gins.,  Gr.,  Del., 
Wr.,  Eur.,  Wild.,  McN.,  Kit.  and  Ko.  (§3i9h)  have  taken  this  view. 
SDN>tt*D  is  supported  by  (gc,  ^,  2i,  (g,  5C,  and  by  the  analogy  of  3»2-  22  and 
gis. — nsnn)  nn^'i].  Instead  the  pre-Aqiban  reading  seems  to  have  been 
nN->>tt>i  7\:^v>v\  for  so  read  (S^c."*  161-248.  254.  293  and  #.  Perhaps  as  McN. 
suggests  the  relative  'C>  was  dropped  by  mistake  from  nnaMa'i  because  of 
its  proximity  to  another  z\  after  which  nsnn  was  changed  so  as  to  make 
the  tense  conform. — ni],  fem.;  an  apocopation  of  pnt.  Cf.  BDB.,  Ges.^- 
§34b  and  Ko.  §45.  The  form  occurs  also  in  2  K.  6i9  Ez.  40"  Qoh.  2'^-  =< 
^15.  18  .723  q13_ — ov-iSsn  n-c],  i.e.,  God's  gift  (Del.).  N^n  is  replaced  by 
NVT    in  some  MSS.     Cf.  Baer,  p.  62.— a-<Na  and  i'^c;'3]  Ha.  rejects  as 

glosses  for  his  metrical  arrangement.     The  whole  of  vs.  24b  (N>n dj) 

he,  like  Sieg.,  regards  as  a  gloss,  although  he  finds  it  in  metrical  form. — 


MAN'S   HELPLESSNESS     [Ch.  3'-'5  97 

25.  Sieg.  and  Ha.  reject  the  vs.  as  a  gloss  along  with  vs.  24b.  That  this  is  un- 
necessary has  been  shown  under  vs.  24. — "'in^].  For  this  (S,  6  and  ^  read 
r)r\Z''\  as  in  vs.  24.  'A,  S  and  B^  read  t'^r^\  or  Din-',  "to  suffer,"  "feel 
pity,"  etc.,  like  Syr.  hus.  The  authorities  last  cited  prove  that  the  reading 
of  d  and  6  is  not  primitive,  for  no  one  would  change  in  that  case  to  the 
more  difficult  reading  of  'A  and  2.  Modern  interpreters  since  Del. 
connect  it  with  the  Ar.  hassa,  "to  feel,  have  sensation,  perceive," 
Aram.  iriJ'n,  As.  asasu,  "  to  feel  pain."  Thus  we  have  the  Syr.  has,  "per- 
ceive," "understand,"  and  Eth.  hawas,  "understanding."  Thus  Del., 
Wr.,  No.,  BDB.  and  Ges.B«-  take  it  correctly  for  "perceive,"  "feel," 
"enjoy." — TD  xin]  does  not  occur  elsewhere  in  BH.,  but  occurs  in  Tal- 
mud, e.g.,  Berakot,  33b,  and  Niddah,  i6b.  It  is  the  equivalent  of  the 
Aram,  p  "13,  cf.  e.g.,  Targ.  to  Isa.  43"  45*,  etc. —  "'Jcn],  instead  (&, 
21,  2C  and  S»  read  ijdd.  Of  modern  scholars,  Gr.,  Zo.,  Dale,  Del.,  Wr., 
Bick.,  Eur.,  Sieg.,  Wild.,  McN.,  Ha.  and  Dr.  have  followed  this  reading. 
In  this  they  are  undoubtedly  right.     ""JCD  gives  no  intelligible  meaning. — • 

26.  tnj].  Ty.'s  notion  that  the  perf.  is  used  to  indicate  the  unalterable 
character  of  God's  decrees,  is  foreign  to  Heb.  thought.  The  perf.  is 
the  perf.  of  actions,  which  experience  proves  to  be  customary,  cf.  Da. 
§40  (c),  Ges.K-  §io6k. —  HcOin]  is  in  Q.,  except  in  726,  pointed  like  the 
part,  of  verbs,  "n"^  {cf.  8^2  92-  is).  On  the  kinship  of  verbs  "n"^  and 
"n",  S,  cf.  Ges.J^-  §7500. — Von  n?  dj]  Zap.  erases  as  a  gloss,  which  destroys 
his  metre,  while  Ha.  regards  the  vs.  metrically  perfect  as  it  stands. 


MAN'S  HELPLESSNESS  IN  COMPARISON  WITH 

GOD  (3--). 

The  burden  of  this  section  is  that  man's  activities  are  limited  to 
certain  times  and  seasons,  in  which  he  goes  his  little  round  doing 
what  has  been  done  before  him ;  his  nature  cries  out  for  complete 
knowledge  of  the  works  of  God,  but  the  best  he  can  do  is  ignorantly 
to  rejoice  and  get  good  within  these  limitations. 

'.  Everything  has  a  fixed  season,  and  there  is  a  time  for  every  busi- 
ness under  the  sun. 

2.  A  time  to  be  born; 

And  a  time  to  die;  ' 

A  time  to,  plant, 

And  a  time  to  uproot  what  is  planted. 
8.  A  time  to  kill 

And  a  time  to  heal; 

A  time  to  break  down 

And  a  time  to  build. 


98  ECCLESIASTES 

*.  A  time  to  weep 

And  a  time  to  laugh; 

A  time  to  mourn 

And  a  time  to  dance. 
Bj  A  time  to  scatter  stones, 

And  a  time  to  pick  up  stones; 

A  time  to  embrace, 

And  a  time  to  refrain  from  embracing. 

6.  A  time  to  seek 
And  a  time  to  lose, 
A  time  to  keep 

And  a  time  to  throw  away. 

7.  A  time  to  rend 
And  a  time  to  sew; 

A  time  to  keep  silence, 
And  a  time  to  speak. 

8.  A  time  to  love 
And  a  time  to  hate; 
A  time  of  war 

And  a  time  of  peace, 

9.  What  profit  has  a  worker  in  that  in  which  he  toils?  i".  I  saw  the 
toil  which  God  has  given  the  sons  of  men  to  toil  in.  '".  He  has  made 
everything  appropriate  in  its  time;  also  he  has  put  ignorance  in  man's 
heart,  so  that  he  cannot  find  out  the  work  that  God  does  from  be- 
ginning to  end.  »^  I  know  that  there  is  no  good  for  them  except  to 
rejoice  and  to  do  good  in  their  life.  ^^.  And  also  every  man — that  he 
should  eat  and  drink  and  see  good  in  all  his  toil,  is  the  gift  of  God.  ".  1 
know  that  all  which  God  does  it  shall  be  forever;  unto  it,  it  is  not  possible 
to  add,  and  from  it,  it  is  not  possible  to  take  away,  and  God  has  done  it 
that  men  may  fear  before  him.  is  What  is  that  which  is  ?  Already  it 
has  been,  and  what  is  to  be  already  is,  for  God  shall  seek  that  which  is 
driven  away. 

1.  Everything  has  a  fixed  season].  In  this  ch.  Qoheleth  reverts 
to  the  thought  of  ch.  i,  but  treats  the  application  of  the  thought  to 
human  activities  in  a  somewhat  different  way.  His  point  is  that 
there  is  a  proper  or  divinely  ordered  time  for  all  human  activities, 
and  that  these  go  on  over  and  over  again.  Ha.  interprets  the 
word  "time"  here  as  a  "short  space  of  time,"  and  so' obtains  the 
meaning  for  verses  1-9,  that  all  is  transient.  This  gives,  how- 
ever, an  unwarranted  meaning  to  the  passage.  Compare  the  Ara- 
bic proverb:  "Everything  has  its  proper  time"  (Jewett,  in  JAOS. 
XV,  92).     Verse  i  is  probably  alluded  to  in  the  last  clause  of 


MAN'S  HELPLESSNESS    [Ch.3i->5  ,       99 

Wisdom,  8\ — 2.  A  time  to  be  born].  Ty.  and  Sieg.  hold  that  this 
table  (vv.  1-8),  of  times  and  seasons,  when  various  actions  are 
appropriate,  betrays  Stoic  influence,  since  Marcus  Aurelius  (IV, 
32)  makes  a  somewhat  similar  contrast.  They  believe  this  table 
shows  a  knowledge  of  the  Stoic  principle  of  living  in  accord  with 
nature.  The  proof  is,  however,  not  convincing.  A  Hebrew,  by 
reflecting  on  life,  might  have  given  expression  to  sentiments  like 
these,  though  untouched  by  Stoic  teaching.  Cf .  Introduction,  §6(2). 
Ha.  transposes  many  of  the  clauses  of  this  table  so  as  to  secure 
a  more  symmetrical  grouping  of  events.  Other  transpositions 
have  been  suggested  (e.g.,  the  transposition  of  2b  and  3a,  and 
placing  5a  before  4a),  so  as  to  secure  a  logical  sequence  of  thought, 
the  order  thus  obtained  being:  i,  treatment  of  landed  property; 
2,  emotions  of  joy  and  sorrow;  3,  preservation  and  loss  of  prop- 
erty in  general;  4,  emotions  of  friendship  and  enmity.  {Cf.  McN., 
p.  61.)  Such  artificial  arrangements  are,  however,  as  McN. 
well  says,  foreign  to  the  book.  Many  suggestions  have  been  made 
as  to  the  meaning  of  ''be  born"  and  "to  die."  The  former  of 
these  is  here  to  be  taken  in  an  intransitive  sense  (see  crit.  note). 
Ty.  thought  it  referred  to  the  fact  that  pregnancy  has  its  fixed 
period  before  birth,  and  that  this  fact  is  made  paraUel  to  the  fact 
that  life  has  its  fixed  period  before  it  is  terminated  by  death.  Ha. 
believes  that  Qoheleth  observed  that  there  are  periods  in  human 
history  when  the  race  exhibits  great  fecundity,  as  it  did  after  the 
Black  Death  (1348-1351),  and  that  there  are  other  periods,  like 
that  of  the  Black  Death,  when  dying  prevails.  It  is  doubtful 
whether  Qoheleth 's  thought  is  as  abstruse  as  either  of  these  would 
imply.  It  is  more  probable  that  he  simply  meant  that  in  every 
life  there  is  a  time  to  be  born  and  a  time  to  die,  and  that. every 
agriculturist  has  a  time  of  planting  and  a  time  of  uprooting,  i.e., 
life  is  full  of  contrasts.  At  one  period  we  undo  what  at  another 
period  we  have  done. — 3.  A  time  to  kill  and  a  time  to  heal].  The 
antitheses  of  life  are  illustrated  by  further  examples.  There  are 
times  when  man  destroys  life,  and  times  when  he  tries  to  save  it; 
times  when  he  breaks  down  old  walls,  and  times  when  he  builds 
new  ones. — 4.  A  time  to  weep  and  a  time  to  laugh].  In  illustration 
of  the  mourning  referred  to,  cf.  Zc.  12"',  and  in  illustration  of  the 


lOO  ECCLESIASTES 

meaning  of  "times  of  mourning  and  of  rejoicing,"  cf.  Mt.  9'^  " 
jii6.  17  Lk,  62»  and  Jn.  1620. — 5.  A  time  to  scatter  stones].  The 
interpretation  of  the  first  clause  is  difficult.  The  01  and  AE.  took  it 
to  refer  to  scattering  the  stones  of  an  old  building,  and  collecting 
stones  for  a  new  structure.  Several  modern  scholars  (Kn.,  Hit., 
Heil.,  Wr.,  No.,  VI..,  Wild.,  and  McN.)*take  it  to  refer  to  scatter- 
ing stones  to  render  fields  unproductive  (cf.  2  K.  3'9  25^^  ^j^j  pick- 
ing up  stones  to  render  a  field  cultivable  {cf.  Is.  52).  PL,  taking 
a  hint  from  a  suggestion  of  Del.,  is  inclined  to  regard  it  as  a  refer- 
ence to  the  Jewish  custom,  which  survives  among  Christians,  of 
throwing  stones  or  earth  into  the  grave  at  a  burial.  Although  he 
confesses  that  this  leaves  the  "gathering"  of  stones  unexplained, 
it  would  refer  to  the  severance  of  human  ties,  as  "embracing"  in 
the  last  clause  refers  to  the  opposite.  Probably  the  second  inter- 
pretation, which  refers  to  fields,  is  to  be  preferred,  though  in  that 
case  there  is  no  logical  connection  between  the  two  halves  of 
the  verse. — A  time  to  embrace  and  a  time  to  refrain  from  embracing]. 
Gr.  and  Wr.  take  the  last  clause  to  refer  to  the  embraces  of  men 
in  cordial  friendly  greeting.  It  is  true  that  the  word  is  so  used  in 
Gn.  2913  T^T^'^  2  K.  4i«.  Ty.,  No.  and  Sieg.  take  it  to  refer  to  erotic 
embraces,  comparing  Prov.  520,  and  Ct.  2^,  where  the  word  un- 
doubtedly has  that  significance.  On  this  interpretation  the  time 
"to  refrain  from  embracing"  is  that  mentioned  in  Lv.  1523  ^\ 
This  latter  view  is  to  be  preferred. — 6.  A  time  to  seek  and  a  time 
to  lose,  a  time  to  keep  and  a  time  to  throw  away].  The  two  clauses 
of  the  verse  are  not  exactly  synonymous.  The  first  refers  to  the 
acquisition  of  property  as  contrasted  with  losing  it;  the  second, 
to  guarding  what  one  has  in  contrast  with  throwing  it  away. — 
7.  A  time  to  rend].  Most  interpreters  see  in  this  verse  a  reference 
to  rending  garments  as  a  sign  of  mourning  {cf.  Gn.  3729  4413 
2  S.  I"  y^  Job  120  2>2),  and  sewing  them  up  after  the  sadness 
is  past,  also  to  keeping  silence  in  sorrow  {cf.  2  K.  i8'«  Job  2'* 
Ps.  392-  «),  and  to  utterance  as  a  sign  of  joy  {cf.  Is.  58'  Ps.  26^ 
1262).  PL,  however,  prefers  to  see  in  it  a  reference  to  rending  a 
garment  as  a  sign  of  schism  or  division,  as  in  the  case  of  Ahijah 
(i  K.  11'°),  in  which  case  the  sewing  would  be  figurative  for  the 
restoration  of  unity.     He  compares  the  words  of  Jesus  (Mt.  lo^^  ") 


MAN'S  HELPLESSNESS    [Ch.  3i-i5  lOl 

to  show  that  there  are  occasions  when  schism  is  necessary,  and 
Is.  5812  to  show  that  there  are  times  when  the  opposite  is  in  place. , 
While  Qoheleth's  principle  might  be  figuratively  extended  to  cover 
such  cases  as  PI.  supposes,  it  is  far  more  likely  that  he  had  the  uni- 
versal customs  of  mourning  in  mind.  On  silence  and  speech  com- 
pare BS.  2o6-  ^  in  the  Heb. — 8.  A  time  to  love].  Qoheleth  declares 
here  that  love  and  hate  as  well  as  their  expression  in  war  and  peace 
have  their  appointed  times.  Wr.  recalls  with  reference  to  vv.  2-8 
the  words  of  Marcus  Aurelius  (xii,  23),  rov  Se  Katpov^  koL  tov  opov 
SiScoaLV  97  (/)ucrt9 — "both  the  opportunity  and  the  Hmit  nature 
gives."  As  was  noted  above,  Ty.  and  Sieg.  regard  these  verses 
as  the  result  of  Stoic  influence.  '  Pfleiderer  {Jahrbuch  filr  prot. 
Theol.,  1887,  178-182)  finds  in  them  traces  of  the  influence  of 
the  Trdvra  pel^  or  universal  flux,  of  Herachtus.  As  Wild,  well  ob- 
serves, the  fundamental  thought  of  these  verses  in  its  connec- 
tion differs  from  every  known  philosophy.  It  is,  as  Cox  says, 
when  man  thinks  himself  most  free  that  he  is  subject  to  divine 
law. 

9.  What  profit, etc.].  After  his  extended  survey,  Qoheleth  returns 
to  the  crying  question  of  ch.  i^.  The  positive  question  is  a  neg- 
ative assertion.  His  position  is  that  there  has  been  ordained  a 
time  for  all  these  activities,  but  that  no  substantial  advantage  ac- 
crues from  them  to  man,  though  he  must  go  through  them. — 10.  / 
saw  the  toil].  Qoheleth  reverts  here  to  the  very  word  which  he 
had  used  in  V^.  The  verse  gives  the  reason  for  the  denial  made 
in  vs.  9. — 11.  Everything  appropriate].  For  a  justification  of  the 
rendering  ''appropriate"  and  "ignorance,"  see  critical  notes  be- 
low. The  verse  continues  Qoh.'s  observations  about  times  and 
seasons.  Everything,  he  declares,  is  suitable  to  its  season,  but 
God  has  so  veiled  man's  vision  that  he  cannot  discover  God's  work 
from  beginning  to  end,  i.e.,  its  purpose  and  meaning.  He  has  put 
ignorance  in  man's  heart — gives  us  a  glimpse  of  Qoheleth's  con- 
ception of  God.  He  thinks  of  him  as  a  being  jealous  lest  man 
should  become  his  equal.  It  is  a  Semitic  thought.  Cf.  Gn.  3"  «, 
and  the  story  of  Adapa,  Keilinschriftliche  Bihliothek,  VI,  92  ff. 
The  first  clause  of  this  verse  is  recaUed  in  the  Heb.  text  of  Sirach, 
2Q16.  33_ — 12.  There  is  no  good  for  them].     This  verse  reiterates  the 


102  ECCLESIASTES 

pessimistic  conclusion  previously  drawn  in  2^^  Qoheleth  comes 
back  to  it  here  after  passing  in  review  the  activities  of  human  life 
in  their  appropriate  times  and  their  futility. — Do  good\.  Ew., 
Heng.,  Zo.,  PL,  and  Wr.  maintain  that  this  means  to  do  good  in 
an  ethical  sense.  Wherever  the  phrase  occurs  in  Qoh.,  however, 
it  is  defined  by  the  context  to  mean  "  enjoy  life."  Del.  is  probably 
right  in  claiming  that  it  is  here  equivalent  to  ''see  good"  of  the 
next  verse. — 13.  And  also].  The  verse  continues  and  completes 
the  thought  of  vs.  12.  Ginsburg  is  quite  right  in  maintaining  that 
''and  also"  is  dependent  upon  "I  know."  It  is  not  to  be  rendered 
as  an  adversative,  as  Wr.  and  VI.  maintain.  The  thought  is  the 
same  as  that  of  2 2%  but  Qoh.  approaches  it  here  from  a  some- 
what different  line  of  reasoning.  Every  man]  or  ^^each  nian^^ 
stands  for  "all  humanity,"  though  the  phrase  takes  each  in- 
dividual man  singly.  Cf.  ch.  ^^'^  and  Ps.  116". — Is  the  gift  of 
God].  In  Qoheleth's  view,  God's  one  good  gift  to  man  is  the  bit  of 
healthy  animal  Kfe  which  comes  wuth  the  years  of  vigor.  See 
below,  ch.  1 1 9-126. — 14.  All  which  God  does  shall  he  forever].  This 
vs.,  introduced  like  vs.  12  by  /  know,  contains  a  second  conviction 
of  Qoheleth,  based  on  vv.  2-3.  This  conviction  is  that  man  is 
caught  in  the  world-order  and  cannot  escape  from  it.  This  much 
can  be  seen  that  the  world-order  is  the  work  of  God,  and  is 
ordained  to  produce  in  men  the  fear  of  God.  As  the  context 
shows,  however,  this  is  to  Qoheleth  not  a  sufficient  explanation. 
He  longs  for  some  vision  of  a  permanent  gain  from  man's  pre- 
scribed activities,  whereas  all  that  he  can  see  is  that  man  should 
eat  q<nd  drink  and  enjoy  himself.  It  is  probable  that  he  does  not 
put  into  the  word  "fear"  a  meaning  so  religious  as  it  often  bears  in 
other  passages,  as  Mai.  i«.  On  the  permanence  of  God's  works, 
cf.  Ps.  7,2>^K  The  first  half  of  this  vs.  is  quoted  and  elaborated 
in  BS.  186.^15.  What  is  that  which  is?  Already  it  has  been].  Qo- 
heleth now  reverts,  approaching  it  from  another  point  of  view, 
to  the  thought  expressed  in  i^.  Here  it  is  the  immutability 
of  the  divine  order  in  which  man  is  caught  that  oppresses  him. 
Everything  has  its  time.  Nothing  can  be  put  out  of  existence. 
Acts  and  events  recur  continually,  each  pursuing  the  other  in  a 


MAN'S  HELPLESSNESS     [Ch.3'-i5  103 

revolving  circle.  Tyler  compares  Ovid,  Metamorphoses,  XV, 
I79/-- 

Even  time  itself  glides  on  with  constant  progress 

No  otherwise  than  a  river.     For  neither  can  the  river  pause, 

Nor  the  fleeting  hour;  but  as  wave  is  urged  by  wave, 

The  earlier  pushed  by  the  one  approaching,  and  it  pushes  the  former, 

So  the  moments  similarly  fly  on  and  similarly  follow, 

And  ever  are  renewed. 

Qoheleth's  figure  is  not,  however,  a  river,  but  a  circle.  In  this  he 
conceives  of  e\;ent  as  chased  by  event,  until  it  is  itself  brought  back 
by  God.     Already],  see  on  i^o. 

!•.  1::']  occurs  in  Heb.only  in  late  books  (Ne.  2^  Es.  9"  ^i  ^^d  here). 
It  is  used  frequently  in  the  Mishna  (see  e.g.,  Erub.,  6^,  and  Zebakhim, 
ii  and  2'.  The  participle  occurs  in  Ezr.  lo'",  Ne.  lo^s  and  i^^^,  in  the 
sense  of  fixing  calendar  dates.  The  noun  means  a  "  fixed  or  appointed 
time."  Schechter  conjectures  that  in  the  Heb.  of  BS.  42",  ]^^2n  np  ^Ji 
should  be  pn  ny  ^i2  (see  above  Introd.  §11,  i).  The  Greek  of 
BS.,  however,  translates  simply  by  nalpov.  The  r<X)t  fCT,  having  the 
same  general  meaning,  is  found  in  Ar.,  Eth.  and  Aram.  In  some  of 
the  dialects  of  the  latter  (Syr.,  Mand.,  Palmyrene  and  Samaritan),  it  is 
zabna,  or  zibna.  In  As.  it  occurs  as  simanu.  In  the  Aram,  of 
Daniel  it  occurs  several  times  in  the  sense  of  "appointed  time,"  see 
Dn.  2i«  21  ^7.  8^  etc.  C&'s  reading,  6  xP^^ot,  indicates  the  pre-Aqiban 
reading  was  pi^.  Cf.  McN.,  p.  141. — Vsn],from  a  root  meaning  "  be 
pleased"  or  "take  delight," originally  meant  "pleasure,"  see  e.g.,  Is. 
4428  461"  5310  and  Job  2121.  Sometimes  in  Qoh.  this  earlier  meaning 
survives  (e.g.,  in  5^  i2i-  i").  Here,  however,  it  means  "matter,"  or 
"business,"  i.e.,  "that  in  which  one  is  occupied,  or  takes  delight,"  a 
meaning  which  it  also  has  in  ch.  5^  and  8«.  The  <&  rendered  it  by 
irpdy/jLa.  In  the  Talmud  it  meant  the  same,  see  Ja.  492b.  Cf.  also  on 
the  word  K6.  §8oc. 

2.  niS'^].  Hit.,  Zo.  and  Sieg.  maintain  that  this  is  not  equivalent 
to  '^^.]^,  but  that  it  is  an  act.  inf.  and  is  connected  with  yon  of  the  pre- 
ceding vs.,  and  refers  to  the  act  of  begetting.  With  this  in  part  Ko. 
(§2 1 5b)  agrees.  The  rod  rcKeiv  of  CI,  as  Wr.  observes,  refers  it  to  the 
labor  of  the  mother,  though  from  this  Ko.  (/.  c.)  dissents.  Heil.,  Gins., 
Del.,  Wr.,  Wild.,  VI.,  No.,  McN.  and  Ha.  rightly  take  it  as  having  an 
intransitive  or  passive  sense,  as  the  opposite  of  niD.  Similarly  nSp  is 
used  for  "birth"  in  Ho.  9"  and  ni'^^  for  ny^nh  in  Je.  25'^.  The  S  in 
this  and  the  following  expressions  seems  to  express  the  genitive  relation, 
cf.   Ko.   §40ob. —  r^yj2^]  is   in  some  authorities  pointed  PjJ'-sS  see  Baer, 


I04  ECCLESIASTES 

p.  62,  and  c/.  n^D^,  Ps.  669.  xhis  form  of  this  inf.  occurs  only  here  in 
BH.  The  usual  form  is  TJp.  or  JJiJJ^'?,  see  Is.  51I6  Je.  ii"  iS^  3128. 
The  form  without  the  J  occurs  in  the  Mishna,  but  as  JJaS,  see  She- 
bi'ith,  2K — i|?p]  is  a  verb  which  occurs  in  the  Kal  once  only  elsewhere 
in  BH.  (Zp.  2*)y  meaning  to  uproot.  It  occurs  in  the  Mishna,  see 
Aboth,  3",  and  the  references  in  Ja.,  p.  iio8a.  The  root  also  occurs  in 
Aram.,  Syr.,  Ar.  and  Eth.,  cf.  BDB.,  sub  voce.  The  Piel  is  used  in 
BH.  in  the  sense  of  "hough,"  "cut  the  ham-strings,"  cf.  Gn.  496  Jos 
116  9  2  S.  8^,  I  Ch.  i8^. — ;vjj]  Ha.  erases  as  a  gloss,  to  secure  a  more 
evenly  balanced  metre. — 3.  J^n].  AE.,  who  is  followed  by  Hit.,  Gins, 
and  Sieg.,  thought  it  unfitting  to  take  this  in  its  ordinary  sense  of  "kill," 
because  that  did  not  seem  to  him  a  natural  antithesis  to  "heal,"  he  ac- 
cordingly rendered  it  "wound."  Most  recent  commentators  (Gr.,  Del., 
No.,  Wr.,  PL,  VI.,  Wild.,  McN.  and  Ha.)  rightly  regard  the  contrast 
between  killing  and  healing — i.e.,  destroying  life  and  saving  it — as  nat- 
ural and  forceful.  The  51  restricts  the  word  Jnn  to  killing  in  war,  but 
as  Wr.  observes,  it  more  probably  refers  to  the  execution  of  individual 
offenders. — I'liis^].  The  root  means  to  "break  through,"  "to  break 
down,"  and  is  particularly  appropriate  as  an  antithesis  of  nj3  in  a  coun- 
try like  Palestine,  where  buildings  are  uniformly  constructed  of  stone. 
In  Is.  5»  it  is  used  of  breaking  down  a  vineyard-wall. — 4.  115D  and  "'ip"']. 
There  is  a  striking  paranomasia  between  these.  liJD  is  used  of  mourn- 
ing, whether  public  or  private,  see  Gn.  23^  i  S.  25'  28^  2  S.  3'^  Je.  16^ 
Zc.  I21''-  ^2.  The  root  occurs  in  As.  as  sapadu  (derivatives  sipdu  and 
sipittu)  in  the  same  meaning.  It  also  occurs  in  Christian  Palestinian 
Aram.  {SchystaMy  J dioticoyt,  64),  and  in  Amharic  with  transposed  radicals, 
as  "dirge"  {cf.  ZDMG.,  XXXV,762).—Ti  means  "to  leap,"  "dance." 
The  root  occurs  in  Aram.,  Syr.  and  As.  with  the  same  meaning.  In 
Ar.  in  9th  stem  it  means  "to  hasten  greatly,"  "to  run  with  leaps  and 
bounds."  Probably,  as  Gins,  suggests,  the  root  is  used  here  instead  of 
TV!:^^  "to  rejoice,"  on  account  of  the  similarity  in  sound  toiDD. — 5.  "I*^-*]. 
For  the  use  of  this  in  the  sense  of  scatter  or  throw  away,  cf.  2  K.  3^5  715 
Ez.  208,  Ps.  2'. — P^n]  is  used  in  Kal  and  Piel  without  apparent  dis- 
tinction in  meaning,  -p  pnn'^],  for  another  example  of  the  use  of  pnn 
with  ]C,  see  Ex.  23^.  0"':3n]  and  p^nr].  Ha.,  to  secure  his  metre,  re- 
jects as  glosses. — 6.  a'pa],  literally  "seek,"  is  here  apparently  used  of  the 
acquisition  of  property,  cf.  Mt.  13^5-  *«. — "(3n]  ordinarily  means  "de- 
stroy," a  meaning  which  it  has  even  in  this  book  in  ch.  7^.  Here,  how- 
ever, it  is  used  in  the  weaker  sense  of  "lose,"  BDB.,  in  which  it  appears 
in  the  Mishna,  Teharoth,  8^.  This  meaning  also  appears  in  Ps.  119'", 
where  "i^fr^n*^'  is  "a  lost  sheep." — T'^'tyn],  see  note  on  previous  verse. 
— 7.  "^0-"^],  "to  sew,"  is  a  comparatively  rare  word.  It  occurs  in  Gn.  3^ 
Er.  13*8  Job  i6»5  and  here.  It  is  also  found  in  NH.,  see  Sabbath,  13*, 
and  Kelim,  20^. — 8.  nnnSc]  and  D^'^K'].     The  change  in  8b  from  infini- 


MAN'S  HELPLESSNESS    [Ch.3>-'5  105 

tives  to  the  nouns  denotes,  as  PI.  has  noted,  that  the  series  is  completed. 
9.  P"*."!""],  see  on  i'. —  r\':^';r\]  Bick.  emends  to  ^cyn,  but  as  Sieg.  re- 
marks, Q.  may  well  have  written  ni:*;n.  Ha.,  who  practically  rewrites 
the  book,  regards  this  vs.  as  originally  a  gloss  to  i',  but  there  is  no  evi- 
dence whatever  to  justify  us  in  transferring  it  thither.  It  is  a  refrain 
which  well  expresses  Q.'s  mood,  and  has  a  genuine  ring. — 10.  ]^y;],  see 
on  1 13.  Ha.  counts  the  verse  a  gloss  as  he  does  vs.  9,  and  with  as  little 
cause. — 11.  na],  in  BH.  usually  means  "fair,"  "  beautiful,  "c/.  BDB., 
sub  voce,  but  in  NH.  it  has  a  much  wider  meaning.  E.g.,  in  Zabim, 
2^,  Makshirin,  51",  Mikwa'oth,  lo^,  na"-  signifies  "good."  It  is  interest- 
ing to  note  that  when  BS.  paraphrases  our  passage  (ch.  39'«- ''),  he  renders 
-"liji  by  J^'iO.  In  Zabim,  31,  n5>  |'^-»x  means  "a  strong  tree."  In  Nazir, 
7<,  -(?:s  n£3''  means  "to  speak  very  well."  In  Zebachim,  8^,  Shebi'ith,  i', 
and  Terumoth,  2*  «,  ^2^  means  the  "best"  (animal  for  sacrifice),  while  in 
Keritoth,  6«,  a"';?';'?  v^'.^  n^^  means  "worth  iwo  Sela's,''  and  nr  n-vr-;  n;^> 
means  "worth  ten  zuzim."  That  this  later  usage  had  begun  as  early 
as  Qoheleth  is  shown  by  ch.  5'^,  where  nrji  means  "befitting"  (so  Ha.). 
The  context  in  the  verse  before  us  demands  such  a  meaning  here. 
— 3^i']  should  probably  be  pointed  o'^v.  To  say  that  "God  has  put 
eternity  in  their  heart,  so  that  they  cannot  find  out  the  work  of  God  from 
beginning  to  end,"  makes  no  sense.  K6.  (§392g)  would  render  "i-'.v  •'^3^! 
"only  that  not,"  but  that  makes  the  thought  of  doubtful  lucidity,  and 
so  far  as  I  have  observed  gives  to  ■'Sn^  an  unwarranted  meaning.  Gaab, 
Kn.,  Hit.,  and  Heil.  derived  the  word  from  the  Ar.  'alotna,  and  took  it  to 
mean  "knowledge,"  or  "Weltsinn."  This,  however,  makes  no  better 
sense  of  the  passage.  Wang.,  Vaih.,  Zo.,  Del.,  Wr.,  Cox,  No.,  Gins., 
Wild,  and  McN.  cling  to  the  meaning  "eternity,"  or  notion  of  eternity. 
It  is  true  that  in  Qoh.  the  word  has  the  meaning  "forever,"  "of  old," 
and  "eternal"  in  i^  1°  2^^  3"  9*  and  12*,  but  that  is  no  reason  why  in 
an  unpointed  text  it  might  not  have  another  meaning  here.  Dale  and 
Sieg.  take  it  to  mean  "future,"  while  Re.  takes  it  in  the  later  meaning 
of  vh'y  for  "world."  Dod.,  more  than  a  century  ago,  pointed  toward 
the  right  interpretation  when  he  rendered  it  "hidden,"  or  "unknown." 
Gr.  saw  that  it  meant  "ignorance,"  while  PI.  hesitatingly,  and  Ha. 
more  positively,  have  followed  this  lead.  The  root  oSy  means  "  hidden," 
"unknown,"  d';'^,  the  unknown  of  time,  hence  "of  old,"  "forever," 
"eternity."  From  this  same  root  oSj.".,  frequently  used  in  the  Talmud 
(cf.  Ja.  1084b),  means  "that  which  is  concealed,"  "secret,"  etc.  The 
context  in  our  verse  compels  us  to  render  it  "ignorance."  Ci'^cv  es. 
253.  254  indicate  that  an  early  reading  was  a'^jJ  So  nx.  nS  .  . . .  ^Sac],  the 
two  negatives  strengthen  the  negation.  They  do  not  destroy  each 
other  as  in  Latin  and  English  (cf.  Ko.  §352x  and  Ges.^^-  §i52y). —  I'DJ  is 
a  late  synonym  of  Vi7,  cf.  BDB.,  693a.  Sieg.  assigns  this  vs.  to  the  Chasid 
glossator.     Ha.,  although  he  translates  it  as  poetry,  also  regards  it  as  a 


Io6  ECCLESIASTES 

gloss.  When  its  real  thought  is  perceived,  however,  the  vs.  fits  ad- 
mirably into  Q.'s  system  of  thought.  The  activities  of  life  may  be  suited 
to  their  seasons,  but  they  are  vain  and  give  no  proper  return,  for  man 
cannot  understand  them. — 12.  Sieg.  claims  that  this  verse  draws  the 
pessimistic  conclusion  to  vs.  lo,  and  contradicts  vs.  ii.  This  view  rests 
on  a  misunderstanding  of  vs.  ii.  Both  are  parts  of  Q.'s  pessimistic 
conclusion.  Ha.,  for  a  reason,  too,  so  subjective  that  I  do  not  appreci- 
ate it,  regards  the  verse  as  a  gloss. —  03].  It  is  probable  from  the  analogy 
of  C"'x:3  in  2^  (which  is  a  corruption  of  onxS,  see  crit.  note  on  2'^^)  and 
□inS  in  815,  which  occur  in  similar  expressions  to  this,  that  Da  is  equiva- 
lent to  zh  (possibly  a  corruption  of  it),  and  refers  to  mankind.  So  Gins., 
Zo.,  Gr.,  Del.,  Sieg.  and  most  recent  interpreters.  Rashbam,  Luther, 
Coverdale,  the  Bishops  Bible,  and  Ty.  took  it  as  "in  them,"  and  re- 
ferred it  to  the  times  and  seasons  of  vv.  2-8.  This  view  is  less  probable. 
— avj  nvJ7'^].  Zirkel,  Kleinert,  Ty.,  Sieg.  and  Wild,  regard  aito  nu'>'  as  a 
Grsecism=ei5  irpdrTeiv.  Del.,  Wr.,  McN.  and  others  declare  that  it  is 
not  necessary  to  regard  the  idiom  as  influenced  by  Greek,  and  they  are 
probably  right,  since  in  2  S.  121*  we  have  the  opposite  y\r\f;^"do 
badly,"  or  "vex  one's  self,"  in  a  book  where  no  Greek  influence  can  be 
suspected. — Dx  o],  "but,"  cf.  Ko.  §3721.  n^Dt'^]  expresses  a  subject 
clause  in  a  shortened  form,  cf.  Kb.  §397a. — 13.  nxnt  nnirilis,  as  it  stands, 
two  instances  of  waw  consecutive  with  the  perfect.  The  same  ex- 
pression occurs  in  2^\  where  the  pre-Aqiban  reading  was  ~C'  with  the 
imperf.  The  Versions  give  no  hint  of  a  similar  original  here.  Sieg. 
regards  this  and  the  following  vs.  as  the  work  of  the  Chasid  interpolator, 
but  when  one  sees  the  sequence  of  the  thought  as  outlined  above,  that, 
so  far  as  this  vs.  is  concerned,  is  unnecessary.  Ha.  rejects  the  vs.  as  a 
gloss  apparently  because  the  thought  is  strongly  expressed  in  ch.  8'*, 
but  surely  an  Oriental  could  express  the  same  thought  more  than  once 
in  a  writing  of  this  length. — 14.  Sieg.  and  Ha.  regard  the  whole  vs.  as  the 
work  of  the  Chasid  glossator,  and  McN.  so  regards  the  last  clause,  re- 
marking that  the  mystery  of  the  inexorable  world-order,  over  which 
Q.  broods,  was  no  mystery  to  the  glossator.  If  our  view  of  the  preceding 
context  be  correct,  Sieg.  and  Ha.  err  in  denying  to  Q.  the  whole  vs. 
McN.  has  probably  needlessly  beheld  the  hand  of  a  glossator  too.  To 
Q.'s  mood  God  might  make  a  world-order  to  cause  men  to  fear  him, 
but  this  would  not  constitute  a  satisfactory  explanation  of  the  limita- 
tions of  human  life  any  more  than  it  did  to  Job  in  certain  of  his  moods 
{cf.  Job  712-20). — j^.in]  takes  up  the  subject  again  like  the  Gr.  aitrbs  or 
Latin  idem,  cf.  Ges.^-  §i4ih. — nin-]  is,  as  Del.  remarks,  "will  be." 
— '?>],  on  the  use  of  this,  in  additions,  cf.  Gn.  28*.  For  j-'n]  with  an  inf. 
to  deny  a  possibility,  see  2  Ch.  20^. — "^J*^  and  I^Din'^],  on  the  inf.  as  ind. 
obj.,  cf.  K6.  §397f. — >""],  cf.  Dt.  42  i3>  and,  for  a  Gr.  equivalent.  Rev. 
22I8. 19.     -:y  ^Tki'i''],  the  -iJ'  expresses  purpose,  introducing  an  objective  sen 


HUMAN  OPPRESSION  AND  INJUSTICE     [Ch.3'«-22        107 

tence,  cj.  Ko.  §384!,  Ges.  ^  §i65b.  Such  Heb.  is  the  original  of  ttol^v  ha, 
Rev.  1315-  16.  As  Gins,  noted  the  subj.  of  ixi"'  is  din,  which  must  be  sup- 
plied from  the  preceding  vs. — 15.  Dvnh  n^'x],  as  Del.  notes,  is  equivalent 
to  the  Gr.  to  /jl^Wov,  cf.  Gn.  1512  Jos.  2'"  Ho.  g^^  12^;  also  Ges.^^-  §1141 
and  Ko.  §3992. — 3'''7Nni],  the  clause  has  usually  been  interpreted  as 
though  ITiJ,  "that  which  is  pursued,"  were  to  be  rendered  "that  which 
is  driven  away,"  and  so  simply  referred  to  that  which  is  past.  Some, 
as  Gr.  and  Ha.,  have  noted,  however,  that  the  Niph,  Tt^j  usually  means 
"  persecuted."  It  certainly  has  this  meaning  in  the  Talmud  {cf.  Ja.  and 
Levy,  sub  voce),  they  accordingly  render  rpj'*  by  "looks  after,"  i.e., 
"God  looks  after  him  who  is  persecuted."  These  scholars  accordingly 
believe  that  the  clause  is  out  of  place,  and  that  it  probably  belonged 
originally  to  vs.  17.  If,  however,  we  recognize  that  Q.  is  thinking  of 
events  as  chasing  one  another  around  in  a  circle,  and  take  H"'"'  in  its 
original  sense  of  "pursue,"  as  in  Jos.  S^^  Je.  291*,  the  difficulty  vanishes 
and  the  clause  fits  into  its  context.  The  phrase  is  quoted  in  the  Heb. 
of  Sir.  53.  Ben  Sira,  like  d,  'A,  S,  #  and  (U,  regards  ^ITIJ  as  masc. 
That,  however,  is  not  a  decisive  objection  to  the  view  advocated  above, 
for  the  masc.  may  be  used  to  express  such  concepts.  Cf.  Ko.  §244a. 
After  PN  we  should  expect  ^iT^jn.  The  article  is  similarly  omitted  in 
aS  PN,  ch.  7^,  On  these  cases,  see  Ko.  §288g.  Ha.  regards  this  verse 
as  two  glosses,  apparently  on  the  principle  that  Q.  could  say  a  thing  but 
once.     Sieg.,  on  the  other  hand,  recognizes  it  as  a  part  of  the  work  of  Q'. 


HUMAN  OPPRESSION  AND   INJUSTICE  PROVE   MEN 
TO   BE   NO   BETTER  THAN  ANIMALS.— s'^-"- 

16.  And  again  I  saw  under  the  sun  the  place  of  judgment — there  was 
wickedness,  and  the  place    of   righteousness — there  was    wickedness. 

17.  I  SAID  IN  MY  HEART  THE  RIGHTEOUS  AND  THE  WICKED  GOD 
WILL  JUDGE,  FOR  A  TIME  FOR  EVERY  MATTER  AND  FOR  EVERY  WORK 
HE    HAS    APPOINTED. 

18.  I  said  in  my  heart  (it  is)  on  account  of  the  sons  of  men,  for  God 
to  prove  them  and  to  show  that  they  are  beasts.  ...  19.  For  the  fate  of 
the  sons  of  men  and  the  fate  of  the  beasts — one  fate  is  theirs.  As  is  the 
death  of  one,  so  is  the  death  of  the  other,  and  all  have  one  spirit.  Man 
has  no  advantage  over  beasts,  for  both  are  vanity.  20.  Both  are  going 
to  the  same  place;  both  were  from  the  dust,  and  both  are  going  to  return 
to  the  dust.  21.  Who  knows  the  spirit  of  the  sons  of  men,  whether  it 
ascends  upward,  and  the  spirit  of  beasts,  whether  it  descends  downward 
to  the  earth.  22.  And  I  saw  that  there  is  nothing  better  than  that  man 
should  rejoice  in  his  work,  for  that  is  his  portion,  for  who  can  bring  him 
to  see  what  shall  be  after  him  ? 


Io8  ECCLESIASTES 

16.  Again  I  saw].  This  vs.  begins  a  new  section,  which  is  but 
loosely  connected  with  the  survey  of  times  and  seasons.  In  it 
Qoheleth  expresses  his  views  on  the  wickedness  of  men  and  their 
lack  of  superiority  to  animals.  The  vs.  pictures  the  corrupt  ad- 
ministration of  Qoheleth's  time.  The  opening  of  the  vs.  is  similar 
to  ch.  212-  13  and  4',  but  contains  the  word  again,  which  is  unusual 
in  such  connections.  Zo.  maintains  that  this  refers  back  to  vs.  12, 
but  it  seems  rather  loosely  to  connect  some  independent  observa- 
tions of  the  writer  with  the  preceding. — The  place  of  judgment — 
there  was  wickedness],  ^^ Place^^  has  been  regarded  by  Hit.,  Gins., 
Zo.,  Del.,  Sieg.  and  Ko.  (§33ok)  not  as  the  object  of  "jau',"  but 
as  ace.  of  place  or  pred.  ace,  the  former  being  the  favorite  view. 
Gins,  urges  that  it  cannot  be  the  obj.  of  "^aw"  on  account  of  the 
accent,  but,  as  Wr.  points  out  in  Gn.  ii,  we  have  the  ace.  occurring 
in  spite  of  this  accent.  I  agree  wdth  Wr.  and  No.  that  the  simplest 
construction  is  to  regard  it  as  an  ace.  here. — Place  of  judgment]  is 
the  place  of  the  administration  of  justice. — Place  of  righteousness] 
is  probably  ''the  place  of  piety,"  "righteousness,"  as  Gr.  has  sug- 
gested, being,  as  in  y^^-  '«•  20  92^  equivalent  to  piety.  On  this  view 
Qoheleth  maintains  that  wickedness  prevails  in  the  administration 
of  government  and  in  the  practice  of  religion.  See  also  critical 
note. 

17.  The  righteous  and  the  wicked  God  will  judge].  This  verse 
interrupts  the  thought.  It  is,  no  doubt,  the  work  of  the  Chasid 
glossator  (see  critical  note).  Del.  notes  that  "judge"  has  a  double 
meaning,  referring  to  the  vindication  of  the  righteous  as  in  Ps. 
78  26',  and  to  the  punishment  of  the  wicked.  The  idea  that  the 
righteous  are  vindicated  is  entirely  out  of  harmony  with  the  con- 
text. This  is  a  strong  reason  for  regarding  it  as  the  work  of  a 
glossator.  On  the  emendation  which  underlies  our  rendering, 
see  critical  note. — A  time  for  every  matter]  is  a  distinct  allusion 
in  the  verse  to  vv.  2-8. 

18.  It  is  on  account  of  the  sons  of  men].  As  Graetz  observed,  this 
verse  connects  directly  with  vs.  16,  vs.  17  being,  as  already  noted,  an 
interpolation.  Qoheleth's  view  is  that  the  corruption  in  civil  and 
religious  affairs  is  God's  way  of  demonstrating  that  men  are,  for 
all  their  intelligence  and  assumed  superiority,  really  on  a  level  with 


HUMAN  OPPRESSION  AND  INJUSTICE     [Ch.3'«-22       109 

animals.  For  the  phrase,  "I  said  in  my  heart,"  see  critical  note  on 
i'«.  Before  on  account  of,  it  is,  is  to  be  supplied.  After  beasts  the 
Hebrew  has  some  words  which  were  added  through  a  mistake. 
The  reasons  for  this  view  and  discussions  of  particular  words  are 
given  in  the  critical  notes. — 19.  SoJis  of  men — beasts — one  fate  is 
theirs].  The  thought  of  vs.  18,  that  men  are  the  same  as  beasts, 
is  here  more  fully  developed.  For  a  similar  thought,  cf.  Ps.  4920. 
On  ''fate,"  see  critical  note  2^^  It  is  further  defined  in  this  very 
verse  as  death.  Spirit]  is  here  the  breath  of  life  as  in  12^  and  Ps. 
1043".  Men  and  animals  are  said  to  possess  the  same  spirit.  In 
Job  1210  man  is  said  to  have  a  spirit  and  animals  a  soul,  but  the 
distinction  is  there  largely  a  matter  of  phraseology  on  account  of 
poetic  parallelism.  For  the  rendering  both,  see  2".  The  thought 
of  this  vs.  is  opposed  in  Wisd.  2\ — 20.  Both  are  going  to  the  same 
place].  The  thought  of  the  preceding  verse  is  here  made  more 
definite.  Men  and  beasts  came  from  the  same  dust  (Gn.  2^-  i^), 
and  to  the  same  dust  they  will  return  (Gn.  y^).  It  is  a  thought 
which  finds  an  echo  in  Job  10 ^  34^5  Ps,  10429  146^,  and  is  quoted 
in  BS.  40"  (Heb.)  and  4i>"  (Gr.).  Siegfried  refers  to  Gn.  61^  721  to 
prove  it  equivalent  to  "all  flesh,"  but  this  is  contrary  to  the  context. 
As  Del.  observes,  the  ''one  place"  is  the  earth,  which,  as  in  ch.  6«, 
is  conceived  as  the  great  cemetery.  Qoheleth  is  not  thinking  of 
Sheol,  but  of  the  common  sepulchre.  PL  finds  the  same  thought  in 
Lucretius: 

Omniparens  eadem  rerum  commune  sepulchrum. 
(The  mother  and  the  sepulchre  of  all.) 

Ginsburg's  claim  that  this  verse  refers  only  to  the  body,  because 
Qoheleth  treats  the  spirit  in  the  next  verse,  can  hardly  be  main- 
tained. What  Qoheleth  says  of  the  spirit  indicates  that  he  in- 
cluded it  with  the  body.  Genung's  claim  that  Qoheleth  was 
thinking  simply  of  the  present  phenomenal  life,  is  probably  true, 
but  at  the  moment  the  phenomenal  life  seemed  to  Qoheleth  to  be 
the  whole.  Siegfried's  claim,  however,  that  ch.  91"  must  be  from 
another  writer,  because  it  recognizes  the  existence  of  Sheol  which 
this  denies,  will  hardly  convince  one  who  knows  from  experience 
to  what  seemingly  contradictory  ideas  one  may,  in  passing  through 


no  ECCLESIASTES 

transitions  in  thought,  give  room. —  21.  Who  knows].  The  inter- 
rogative is  in  reaHty  a  strong  negation,  cf.  ch.  6'^  Am.  5"  Ps. 
90'!  Is.  53'.  Apparently,  Qoheleth's  contemporaries  held  that 
as  the  breath  of  man  came  from  God  (Gn.  2^),  so  it  went  back  to 
God,  while  the  breath  of  animals  went  to  the  earth.  This  Qohe- 
leth  combats.  That  Qoheleth  really  held  the  view  that  the 
spirit  (or  breath)  of  man  returns  to  God  is  shown  by  12^,  though 
in  his  mood  of  despondent  pessimism  he  seems  here  to  deny  it. 
He  uses  "spirit"  to  mean ''the  breath  of  Hfe,"  BD5.,and  not  in  the 
sense  of  '''soul."  The  latter  was  expressed  by  a  different  Heb. 
word  (see  Schwally,  Leben  nach  dem  Tode,  Sj  ff.,  161,  180/.,  and 
Frey,  Tod,  Seelenglaube  und  SeelenkuU,  18).  This  is  true,  although 
in  the  Talmud  it  was  supposed  that  Qoheleth  was  referring  to  the 
souls  of  men  (cf.  Weher,  J iid.  TheoL,  1897,  338/.).  Qoheleth 
follows  up  his  statement  that  "both  return  to  dust,"  by  the  claim 
that  no  one  can  make  good  the  assertion  that  the  breath  of  one  has 
a  different  destination  than  that  of  the  other.— 22.  There  is  nothing 
better,  etc.].  Qoheleth's  train  of  thought,  starting  from  the  cor- 
ruption in  civil  and  religious  hfe,  has,  at  least  for  the  moment, 
convinced  him  that  man  is  no  more  immortal  than  an  animal. 
■From  this  he  draws  in  this  verse  the  conclusion  that  man's  only 
good  is  to  have  as  good  a  time  as  he  can  in  the  present  life.  This 
is  a  fundamental  thought  of  the  book,  to  which  Qoh.  frequently 
reverts  (cf.  2"  y-  51^-  i»  S'^  9'-«).  Here  he  adds  as  a  reason  for  it 
that  no  man  can  know  what  will  happen  after  him, — a  thought 
shared  by  other  OT.  writers  (cf.  Ps.  30^  8S'<^-''  Is.  38^^).  It  is  too 
great  a  refinement  to  try  to  determine,  as  some  have  done,  whether 
Qoheleth  refers  to  man's  ignorance  of  what  will  happen  on  the 
earth  after  him,  or  to  an  entire  lack  of  knowledge  after  death. 
The  language  of  some  of  the  Psalmists  is  as  strong  as  his.  In 
Qoh.'s  mood  a  complete  negation  of  all  knowledge  is  most  fitting, 
and  grew  naturally  out  of  the  old  Hebrew  point  of  view  as  to  the 
future  life.  Although  no  reference  is  made  here  to  eating,  or  to  the 
pleasures  of  the  appetites  as  in  2^*,  we  should  not  conclude  with 
Genung  that  Qoh.'s  thought  is  now  centred  on  work  in  its  nobler 
creative  aspects.  Qoheleth  has  plainly  shown  that  man's  "work " 
(what  he  can  do)  includes  the  sensual  side.     His  thought  is  "Let 


HUMAN  OPPRESSION  AND  INJUSTICE    [Ch.3'«-22       III 

a  man  live  to  the  full  the  round  of  life's  occupations  in  every  de- 
partment, for  this  is  his  fated  lot — his  profit  for  his  toil — and  he 
has  no  higher  possibility." 

16.  i^O'f  ]  is  an  emphatic  form  of  D"^'.  Ordinarily  the  n?  is  used  only 
after  verbs  of  motion  with  a  locative  signification,  but  in  Je.  iS^  Ps. 
122^  and  here  it  is  an  emphatic  form  of  D'^',  cf.  Ko.  §33oh. — "tin].  Gr. 
noted  that  in  the  two  halves  of  the  vs.  it  is  tautological,  and  conjectured 
that  instead  of  the  second  we  should  read  yi"^,  transgression,  a  con- 
jecture which  Dr.  also  makes.  This  is  probably  right.  Had  it  any 
MS.  authority  I  should  introduce  it  into  the  text.  (S  curiously  reads 
evj-e^-iis  for  d<T€^-qs  in  all  copies.  Eur.  regards  it  as  an  early  mistake,  but 
McN.  as  an  early  dogmatic  correction  in  the  interest  of  orthodoxy. 

17.  Sieg.,  McN.  and  Ha.  regard  this  vs.  as  an  interpolation  of  the  Chasid 
glossator.  In  this  they  are  right,  for  the  thought  is  out  of  harmony -with 
its  context.  The  opinion  of  Del.  as  to  the  double  meaning  of  'osz'  is 
reinforced  by  BDB.  p.  1047b.  The  opinions  of  such  Hebraists  cannot 
lightly  be  rejected.  Moreover,  vs.  18  joins  directly  on  to  vs.  16. — \incN]. 
(gB  68.  248.  298  and  ^  rcad  \-i-icni.-— ^>']  is  used  as  in  late  Heb.  in  the 
same  meaning  as  S  so  BZ)B.,  Del.,  Wild. — au']  has  been  variously 
interpreted.  Hit.,  Heil.,  Ty.,  Gins.,  Zo.,  Del.,  PL,  and  Wr.  take  it  as 
"there,"  interpreting  it  as  "in  that  place"  (Heil.),  "in  the  ap- 
pointed course  of  things"  (Ty.),  or  a  pud  Deunt  (Del.  and  Wr.).  On 
the  other  hand,  Houb.,  Dat.,  Van  d.  P.,  Luz.,  Kn.,  Gr.,  Re.,  No.,  VI.,' 
Wild.,  Ha.  and  Dr.  emend  to  Di:',  as  I  have  done  above,  d^  ss  omits 
it.  This  has  led  Sieg.  and  McN.  to  do  the  same.  McN.  regards  it  as 
a  possible  corruption  of  the  last  two  letters  of  n-^^yD  or  the  first  two  of 
the  fol.  \'^i;2N.  As  ($  puts  it  at  the  beginning  of  the  next  verse,  it  may, 
on  the  other  hand,  have  been  omitted  for  the  sake  of  smoothness. 
McN.  opposes  the  emendation  ci:*  on  the  ground  of  awkwardness  of 
style,  but  the  verb  in  the  first  half  of  the  vs.  is  near  the  end,  and  this 
clause  may  well  have  been  inverted  in  like  manner.  On  the  whole,  I 
prefer  the  conjectural  emendation  of  the  commentators  quoted. 

18.  mai  ?>•]  is  late.  Apart  from  this  passage  it  occurs  only  in  BH.  in 
Qoh.  7'^  82  and  Ps.  iio«.  The  usual  form  is  -i3-\  hy  (cf.  Gn.  2oii-  i* 
12"  43I8  Ex.  88),  or  njT  h-;  (cf.  Dt.  421  Je.  141).  It  means  "for  the  sake 
of."  Cf.  BD5.— D-13S]  is,  as  BBB.,  Gins.,  Del.,  McN.  and  Ges.^  (§67p) 
have  noted,  from  "\i:3,  the  inf.  being  formed  like  "n  from  tti,  Is.  45", 
and  7,v  from  ']y^,  Je.  52s.  It  is  connected  with  the  As.  hararti,  "  to  be 
bright."  d's  dLaKpcvei  takes  it  in  the  secondary  meaning  of  "choose," 
"select,"  in  which  the  part,  of  the  stem  is  used  in  i  Ch.  7*°  922  16^1  and 
Ne.  51*.  It  has  in  NH.  the  meaning  "single  out,"  "choose,"  and  "sift" 
also,  cf.  Kil.,  2',  Maasr.,  2«,  Sab.,  y-,  and  Citl.,  5'.     "Probaret"  (IC),  and 


112  ECCLESI ASTES 

the  similar  reading  of  ©,  presupposes  a  Piel,  as  in  NH.  the  stem  has  this 
meaning  only  in  the  Piel  (c/.  Ja.  197b).  The  meaning  "sift"  fits  here 
admirably,  ^'s  reading  Nna  is  an  error  {cf.  Eur.  p.  58,  and  Kame- 
netzky  in  ZAW.,  XXIV,  215).— n^Nn^].  Instead  (g,  ^  and  21  read  niNn':. 
Hiph.  "to  show,"  which  is  undoubtedly  the  true  reading.  So,  Wr., 
No.,  Eur.  and  McN.  The  clause  introduced  by  "^  is  a  clause  of  pur- 
pose, see  Ko.  §407c. —  '^\  On  the  pointing  for  the  relative,  see  Ges.^ 
§36. — 3nS  hdhJ,  These  words  have  been  very  differently  treated  by 
different  interpreters.  Del.  and  Wr.  take  them  to  mean  "they  in  refer- 
ence to  themselves,"  believing  that  ^r:ir\  was  introduced  because  of  its 
alliteration  to  r\-:^r\-y.  Ko.  (§36)  interprets  zrh  similarly.  Sieg.  believes 
that  neither  word  belongs  to  the  text,  holding  that  ncn  arose  by  dit- 
tography  with  r\';.r\i,  and  that  onS  was  afterward  added  as  an  explana- 
tory gloss.  With  reference  to  the  origin  of  r^-oTs^  Gr.  had  anticipated 
him.  McN.  agrees  as  to  r^-r:ir\^  but  holds  that,  because  (&  begins  the  fol- 
lowing vs.  with  Kal  76  avrot%,  the  ending  of  this  verse  was  onS  dj. 
Del.  admitted  that  the  last  clause  contained  an  unusual  fulness.  In 
reality  it  is  most  awkward  Heb.,  and  I  agree  with  Sieg.  that  both  these 
words  are  an  intrusion  in  the  text. — 19.  Dn'^]  <g,  g>  and  W^  bring  over 
from  vs.  18  to  the  beginning  of  vs.  19.  %^  reads  ov  avvavTrj/ia,  but 
the  oil  is  probably  a  corruption  of  on,  a  translation  of  o.  Sieg.  would 
emend  ""p  to  -r  and  make  the  comparison  begin  here.  '■17.17'?]  MT. 
points  as  though  in  the  absol.  state,  which  would  compel  us  to  read 
"fate  are  the  sons  of  men,  and  fate  are  the  beasts," — a  reading  which 
Heil.,  Gins.,  Gel.  and  Wr.  follow.  (S,  ^,  ffi  and  QI,  however,  read 
nnjpD,  Stat,  constr.,  and  this  is  undoubtedly  right. —  "(."iid]  occurs  no- 
where else  in  Qoh.,  who  uses  inn;i  or  "inv  ^,  2  and  0  read  "\n^  --i:, 
making  the  clause  a  question,  to  which  px  was  the  answer.  McN. 
adopts  this  reading,  and  it  has  much  in  its  favor.  Zap.  and  Ha.  erase 
San  San  >:>,  and  Ha.  also  nnpDi  onxn  "-ja  nipD  "-d  n:;n3n,  and  ncnj  ]d  on 
metrical  grounds  with  great  arbitrariness.— 20.  (Sbs*v  es.  147-157-159.  254 
omit  iSin.  McN.  accordingly  believes  that  it  was  absent  from  the 
pre-Aqiban  text.  Other  MSS.  of  d  as  well  as  the  other  ancient  versions 
support  it.  Ha.,  for  metrical  reasons,  omits  as  a  gloss  -'?n  -\h^n  Son 
nns  DipD,  and  suggests  the  improbable  explanation  that  it  was  based 
on  Horace's  "Omnes  eodem  cogimur,"  which  was  written  about 
23  B.C.— 3!y]  instead  (^^  ««•  '^g.  254.  261.  296  §h  j-ead  apparently  3-'^ 
Whether  this  was  a  pre-Aqiban  reading,  or  has  resulted  from  a  cor- 
ruption in  Gr.  MSS.,  is  uncertain. — 21.  -n],  before  n':'j7  and  m-\%  is 
rightly  taken  by  (S,  B,  U  and  SI  and  by  most  modern  interpreters  (Kn., 
Gins.,  Gr.,  Zo.,  Del.,  Wr.,  No.,  VI.,  McN.  and  K6.§§379aa,  4i4d) 
as  interrogative.  Geiger,  Sieg.  and  Ges.^-  (§ioom)  hold  that  the  text 
here  was  intended  to  be  interrogative,  but  that  it  cannot  be  so  considered 
as  at  present  pointed,  and  that  the  n  has  been  in  both  cases  changed 


MAN'S  INHUMANITY     [Ch.4>-i2  II3 

for  dogmatic  reasons.  This  seems  to  be  a  mistake,  as  in  some  cases 
the  interrogative  particle  takes  kantec  before  gutturals  (see  ^''Nn,  Nu. 
1622),  and  in  some  cases  daghesh  forte  before  other  letters  (see  3^3n  Job 
23^  D>N3n  Is.  276,  and  ao^n  Lv.  iqi*). 

(g,  ^  and  60  MSS.  (so  Dr.)  read  >Di  at  the  beginning  of  the  verse. 
— 22.  •^tt'ND  3iio],  in  the  sense  of  "better  than,"  cf.  Ko.  §392e.  onNn],  the 
art.  is  used  to  denote  a  class  of  beings  {cf.  Da.  §22  (c)). — pSn].  The 
context  shows  that  here  and  in  21"  s^^-  '^  and  9^  it  has  the  meaning  of 
"reward,"  "profit"  {cf.  BDB.  324a).  ux-ij"*  •'c],  like  n^^  ^D  of  the 
preceding  vs.,  is  really  a  strong  denial. — 3  nxn],  see  crit.  note  on  2^. — 
V\r\ii]  K6.  (§40ib)  seems  to  be  right  in  saying  that  this  is  equivalent 
to  niD  nnx.  VI. 's  interpretation,  which  limits  the  lack  of  knowledge 
to  what  goes  on  among  men  on  the  earth,  seems  forced. — ijno''] 
Winckler  (AOF.,  351)  emends  to  UJO"-,  "cause  him  to  perceive." 
This  is  unnecessary. —  np].  Hit.,  Del.,  and  No.  note  that  the  pointing, 
seghol,  here  is  due  to  the  influence  of  the  following  ~tr.  Cf.  also  Ges.^- 
§io2k.  Baer  notes  (p.  63)  that  two  authorities  favor  the  reading  nn. 
Sieg.  assigns  this  vs.  and  its  kindred  passages  cited  above  to  an  epicurean 
interpolator,  claiming  that  Q^  knew  no  joy  in  work.  In  support  of 
this  he  cites  i^-  »  2"-  "^-  20.  22f.  xhis  result  is  reached  only  by  excising 
in  each  part  of  the  context — a  process  which  can  be  necessary  only  to 
one  who  is  convinced  that  both  Stoic  and  Epicurean  thought  mingle 
in  the  book.  Against  this  view,  see  above.  Introduction,  §6  (2).  Ha. 
rejects  as  an  unmetrical  gloss  all  of  the  verse  after  vir^o.  His  basis 
is,  however,  too  doubtful. 

MAN'S  INHUMANITY. 

41 -»2  is  a  section  treating  of  man's  inhumanity  to  man,  and  the  re- 
flections which  it  caused  in  the  mind  of  Qoheleth.  The  subject  is 
divided  into  three  parts:  (i)  The  oppressions  of  men  by  men;  (2)  The 
vanity  of  rivabry;  and  (3)  The  lonely  miser's  inhumanity  to  himself. 

41.  And  again,  I  saw  all  the  oppressions  which  are  practised  under 
the  sun,  and  behold  the  tears  of  the  oppressed!  And  they  had  no 
comforter.  And  from  the  hand  of  the  oppressors  (went  forth)  power, 
but  they  had  no  comforter.  2  And  I  congratulated  the  dead,  v^ho  have 
akeady  died,  more  than  the  living  who  are  yet  alive.  '.  And  (I  regarded) 
as  happier  than  both  of  them  him  who  had  never  been  born,  who  has 
not  seen  the  evil  work  which  is  done  under  the  sun.  *.  And  I  saw  all 
the  toil  and  all  the  -skilful  work,  that  it  was  jealousy  of  one  towards  an- 
other, also  this  is  vanity  and  a  desire  of  wind. 

5.   The  fool  folds  his  hands  and  eats  his  own  flesh. 

8.  Better  is  a  palm  of  the  hand  full  of  rest  than  the  hollow  of  two  hands 
full  of  toil  and  the  desire  of  wind.     ^  Again  I  saw  a  vanity  under  the 


114  ECCLESIASTES  / 

sun.  8,  There  is  a  lone  man,  without  a  second,  he  has  neither  son  nor 
brother,  but  there  is  no  end  to  all  his  toil,  yea  his  eye  is  not  sated  with 
wealth.  And  for  whom  do  I  toil  and  deprive  myself  of  good?  This 
al§p  is  vanity  and  an  evil  task. 

9.  Two  are  better  than  one,  for  they  have  a  good  reward  in  their  toil. 
10.  For,  if  one  shall  fall,  the  other  can  raise  up  his  companion,  but  woe 
to  the  solitary  man  who  shall  fall,  when  there  is  none  to  raise  him  up. 
".  Also,  if  two  lie  together,  then  they  have  warmth,  but  the  solitary 
man — how  shall  he  be  warm?  i2_  And  if  (a  man)  should  attack  one, 
two  could  stand  against  him,  and  a  threefold  cord  is  not  easily  broken. 

4'.  /  saw  all  the  oppressions].  The  observation  contained  in 
this  verse  is  kindred  to  that  in  y^,  though  different  from  it. — Tears]. 
The  deep  emotion  which  the  tears  of  the  oppressed  excited  in 
Qoheleth  is  evidence  of  his  profound  sympathies  with  the  lower 
classes. — Power]  is  taken  by  several  commentators  to  mean 
violence.  Such  a  meaning  would  fit  the  context  admirably,  but 
the  word  bears  such  a  significance  in  no  other  passage.  Undoubt- 
edly the  context  shows,  however,  that  it  means  an  oppressive  use 
of  power.  The  iteration  of  the  phrase  they  had  no  comforter  is  for 
rhetorical  effect.  It  heightens  the  impression  of  the  helplessness 
of  the  oppressed. — 2.  I  congratulated  the  dead].  The  oppressions 
which  men  suffer  make  Qoheleth  feel  that  the  only  happy  men  are 
those  who  are  dead.  This  was,  however,  not  his  settled  opinion 
(cf.  9^).  It  was  rather  a  transitory  mood,  though  intense  in  feel- 
ing while  it  lasted.  For  similar  expressions,  see  ch.  71  Job  y^ 
and  Herodotus  i^'. — 3.  Happier  than  both,  him  luho  had  never 
been  born].  The  thought  of  Qoh.  here  surges  onward  to  the  as- 
sertion that  better  even  than  the  dead  are  those  who  have  never 
been  born.  For  similar  sentiments,  see  ch.  6^-^  7^  Job  313-16 
Je.  2oi«,  and  among  classical  authors,  Theognis,  425-428,  Sopho- 
cles, (Edipus,  col.  1225-1228,  and  Cicero,  Tusc.  V\ — Seen]  is  here 
not  so  much  "seen"  as  "experienced."  4.  That  it  was  jealousy 
of  one  towards  another].  It  springs  from  jealousy  or  rivalry. 
Qoheleth  here  passes,  from  consideration  of  the  inhumanity  of 
oppressors  to  the  inhumanity  of  competition.  He  finds  in  this 
the  motive  of  toil  and  the  arts. 

5.  Folds  his  hands],  a  synonym  for  idleness,  cf.  Pr.  6'"  192^  24". 
— Eats   his  own  flesh],  devours  his  substance  through    idleness. 


MAN'S  INHUMANITY     [Ch.  41-12  115 

This  is  no  doubt  a  current  proverb,  which  is  here  quoted.  It  is 
out  of  harmony  with  the  context,  however,  and  was  probably  added 
by  the  Hokma  glossator. 

6.  Palm  of  the  hand])  the  slight  hollow  of  the  flat  up-turned 
hsLTid.—Rest],  an  Oriental's  ideal  of  enjoyment,  cf.  Job  s'\— 
The  hollow  of  two  hands],  both  hands  so  curved  as  to  hold  as 
much  as  possible.  This,  too,  is  no  doubt  a  current  proverb,  but 
it  is  so  in  accord  with  the  thought  of  the  context,  that  it  was  prob- 
ably inserted  by  Qoheleth  himself.  The  thought  is  similar  to 
that  of  Pr.  15^^.-7.  Again  I  saw^,  Qoheleth  now  turns  from 
rivalry  to  consider  avarice. — 8.  Without  a  second].  This  is  ex- 
plained by  the  words  son  nor  brother.  Qoh.  means  a  man  with- 
out helper  or  heir,  though  second  can  hardly  mean  "wife,"  as  AE. 
thought. — No  end  to  all  his  toil],  activity  has  become  a  disease. — 
His  eyes].  The  eye  is  frequently  used  as  the  organ  of  desire,  cf. 
210  and  note. — Sated].  An  avaricious  soul  is  never  satisfied. — For 
whom  do  I  toil  ?]  Qoheleth  suddenly  drops  the  indirect  discourse 
and  transfers  us  to  the  soul  of  the  miser,  perhaps  to  his  own  soul, 
for  this  may  be  a  bit  of  personal  experience.  See  above,  Intro- 
duction, §17,.— This  also  is  vanity].  Here  Qoheleth  reverts  again 
to  his  own  reflections.     The  sentiment  of  this  verse  is  repeated  in 

BS.  14^ 

9-12  are  evidently  current  proverbs.  It  is  an  open  question 
whether  the  proverbs  were  introduced  by  Qoheleth  himself,  or  by 
glossators.  See  critical  note.  9.  Two  are  better  than  one].  -  Cf. 
Gn.  218.  Jewish  and  classic  lore  contain  similar  sentiments,  e.g., 
Iliad,  10"^  -226._yl  good  reward].  The  nature  of  this  is  explained  in 
the  next  vs.  It  is  that  they  help  each  other  in  time  of  need.— 10.  // 
the  one  shall  fall  the  other  can  raise  up  his  companion].  The  thought 
of  the  vs.  is  that  comradeship  is  the  reward  of  united  toil.— 11.  // 
two  lie  together].  The  reference  is  not  to  husband  and  wife,  but 
to  two  traveUers.  The  nights  of  Palestine  are  cold,  especially  in 
the  colder  months,  and  a  lone  traveUer  sleeps  sometimes  close  to 
his  donkey  for  warmth  in  lieu  of  other  companionship  (see  Barton, 
A  Year's  Wandering  in  Bible  Lands,  p.  167/.);  Del.  observes 
that  in  the  Aboth  of  R.  Nathan,  ch.  8,  sleeping  together  is  a  sign 
of  friendship.— 12.  A  man],  the  Heb.  leaves  the  reader  to  gather 


Il6  .   ,  ECCLESIASTES 

the  subject  of  the  verb  from  the  sentence,  but  it  is  clear  that  a 
robber  is  intended. — Two  could  stand  against  him].  This  afhd  the 
preceding  vs.  present  further  proofs  of  the  advantages  of  com- 
panionship.— A  threefold  cord\  one  of  the  best-known  passages 
in  the  book.  Genung  thinks  the  phrase  means  that  if  two  are 
better  than  one,  t^ree  are  better  still.  Probably  this  is  right. 
The  other  suggestions  that  have  been  made  seem  fanciful. 

4'.  HN-^Ni  .■;...  >n:i'i»  ].  This  is  an  instance  of  waw  consecutive  with  the  im- 
perf.  An  earlier  instance  occurs  in  ch.  i^^.  Instances  of  its  use  with  the 
perf.  have  been  noted  in  2^4  and  313,  though  it  is  rare  in  Qoh. — ••najj'i,  like 
Ti^'^  in  9",  is,  as  several  interpreters  have  noted,  a-Heb.  idiom  for  an 
adverb.  .  It  is  equal  to  "again,"  see  Ko.  369r. — a''i7t:*>;].  The  hrst  oc- 
currence is,  as  most  recent  commentators  agree,  an  abstract,  as  in 
Am.  39  Job  35^.  Ko.'s  limitation  of  this  usage  to  the  last  two  passages 
quoted  (Ko.  §26id)  seems  arbitrary.  The  second  D"ipVvr>*  is  the  passive 
part.  Cf.  '«"'ni3,  Is.  35'<'. — ."i;;oi],  though  sing,  in  form,  is  collective  in 
sense,  as  in  Is.  25*  Ps.  39^3  42^ — u^t-yi  nti'N].  Ha.  excises  this  Niph.  part 
as  a  gloss;  it  does  not  fit  his  metrical  theory.  B  inserts  pN  before  t-d. 
which  gives  the  sentence  quite  a  different  turn.  There  is  no  other  au- 
thority for  this,  however,  and  it  is  probably  a  mistake. — hd  ur\^pz'-;  it], 
RV.  rendei-s  "on  the  side  of  their  oppressors  there  was  power,"  making 
"TiD   equal  to    "t*  ^>\     As  McN.   observes  it  is  simpler  to  supply  some 

verb  like  "went  forth." — on*? an^].    Ha.  claims  that  the  first  refers 

to  the  oppressed,  and  the  second  time  to  the  oppressors;  Dnjc]  he  also 
takes  the  first  time  as  ".comforter,"  the  second  as  "avenger."  In  that 
case  the  last  clause  should  be  rendered,  "there  was  no  avenger  (for  the 
wrongs  done,  by  them) " — a  view  which  is  probably  right.  Sieg.  holds 
that  the  last  DHJd  on*?  |\n  is  a  mistake,  that  the  words  are  unsuited  to 
the  context,  and  must  have  arisen  from  dittography.  On  Ha.'s  inter- 
pretation, adopted  above,  this  objection  falls  to  the  ground. — 2.  nat*"] 
has  caused  the  commentators  much  trouble,  and  has  occasioned  some 
emendations  of  the  text.  AE.,  Herzfeld  and  Gins,  regarded  it  as  a 
verbal  adjective.  Ges.,  Kn.,  Heil.,  Elst.,  Del.  (hesitatingly)  and  others 
regarded  it  as  a  participle  Piel,  from  which  the  c  had  been  accidentally 
dropped.  '\'r\'g!  in  Zeph.  i" — a  form  which. made  Del.  hesitate  to  call 
noty  an  inf. — is,  as  Wr.  has  pointed  out,  a  verbal  adjective.  Among 
more  recent  commentators  Eur.  and  Sieg.  hold  that  it  is  a  part.  They 
explain  the  accidental  loss  of  the  n  through  its  similarity  to  k^'  in  the  old 
alphabet.  Dr.  suggests  that  possibly  the  original  reading  was  Tinari. 
BotR  these  suggestions,  however,  lack  evidence.  Rashbam,  Mendels- 
sohn, Ew.,  Zo.,  Wr.,  Heng.,  Gr.,  Hit.,  VI.,  Wild.,  McN.,  Ko.  (§§2i8b 


MAN'S  INHUMANITY    [CnA'-'\  Il7 

and  225e)  and  Ges.K-   (§ii3gg)   regard    it   as   an  inf.  abs.     With  this 
view  I  agree.     For  similar  constructions,  cf.  Gn.  41"  Ex.  8"  and  Ju.  71^. 
The  word  in  the  sense  of  "praise,"  "congratulate,"  is  an  Aramaism, 
and  occurs  in  late  books  only.     It  appears  in  Ps.  63^  i  Ch.  i635,  and  often 
in  Aram,  as  in  Dn.  2^^  4^'-  ^'  5'-  ^\  and  in  the  Targum  on  Koh.  42  Ex.  151 
Ps.  4S  etc.— ^33],  see  note  on  iio.—dn^d  tn].    As  01  read  ::>T^^.n  ^d-px  in- 
stead, McN.   properly  regards  this  as  the,  pre-Aqiban  reading.     Ha. 
regards  inn  n3Di:>  and  the  second  D^^n   as  glosses.     Of  course  it  is  be- 
cause of  his  arrangement  of  the  metre.— njny]  (pointed  thus  by  Baer 
and  Dr.,  but  n::^y.  by  Hahn)  is  composed  of  njn— \>:  or   I^— '>'.   In  vs.  3 
it  is  shortened  to  Ul-     It  occurs  nowhere  else  in  BH.,i3Utc/.  the  NH. 
pny  _3.  n-^'N  pn].     Scholars  have  differed  in  their  interpretation  of  the 
government  of  this.     Kn.,  Wr.,  VI.,  Wild.,  Sieg.  and  K6.  (layob)  hold 
that  it  is  governed  by  r^yl:  of  the  preceding  Averse,  Gins,  and  McN.  by 
nsc',  to  be  supplied  in  thought  from  the  preceding  vs.     As  Del.  ob- 
served, however,  310  follows    n?'^'  very  unnaturally,  and  neither  <g,  ^ 
nor  U  takes  it  as  the  object  of  such  a  verb,    Del.  accordingly  suggested 
that  rx  mav  be  the  equivalent  of  the  Ar.  'ayya,  a  sign  of  the  nom.  case, 
as  <S  and  i  render  it.     He  also  suggests  that  ^PNnp  is,  perhaps,  to  be 
supplied,  since  H  renders  judicavi.     In  that  case  rx  would  be  the  sign 
of  the  ace.  as  usual.     This  is  the  view  taken  by  No.  and,  apparently, 
by  Ges.K   (§117!).     It  seems  to  me  the  most  probable  view.— n>:],  see 
note  on  vs.  2.      n^n]  is  happily  rendered  iyewi^dr)  by  S.— nt:7::n]  refers 
here  to  human  oppressions.— >nn  nu^nn  pnJ.      (g,  'A  and  0  read  ^3-PvS 
nirvrn  >nn,  which  was  probably    the   reading    in    Aqiba's   time.      Ha. 
omits  y-jn'  on  metrical  grounds.     4.  inr3]=  "skill,"  though  in  510  it  is 
equivalent  to  ]^-\r^\  see  note  on  2^1.     Cg  renders  it  in  all  three  passages  by 
avbpeLa,  which  does  not  give  quite  the  thought.— >r]=" that"  as  in  Gn.  i* 
Job  2212,  cf.  K6.  §4i4C.— PNjp],  "jealousy"  is  often  used  with  S,  as  in 
I  K.  191'"  Nu.  ii29,  etc.,  and  with  3  as  in    Dt.  32^1  Pr.   3»S  etc.— p, 
J  inj;nD  c\x  PvSjpJ,    in   this   expression  the   p  is  used  to  express   the   re- 
ciprocal idea,  cf.  K6.  §3o8b.     From  (gB's  reading  on   rb   ^ijXos  dudpl, 
which  Swete  adopts  in  his  text,  McN.  concludes  that  the  true  reading 
was  ti'^N  rmp  >d,  omitting  x^n.     The  point  is  uncertain,  however,  since 
N"-n  is  here  a  copula  and  might  not  be  represented  in  (S. 

5.  Sieg.,  McN.  and  Ha.  rightly  consider  this  vs.  a  proverb  inserted  by 
some  glossator.  It  was  probably  introduced  because  the  context  seemed  to 
encourage  sloth.— p^n]  generally  in  BH.  means  "to  embrace,"  c/.  ch. 
35  Gn.  2913  4810,  etc.  It  is  connected  with  Aram.  p3n  and  similar 
Mand.,  Syr.  and  Ar.  stems.  The  root  means  "to  embrace,"  except 
Ar.,  but  the  Ar.  ii  stem  means  to  "gather  together."  Here  it 
used   figuratively   for   folding   the   hands.— nc'3  SD.N]="to   destroy 

self,"  cf.  Ps.  272  Mi.  33  Is.  49'«  Pr.  30''-      So,  correctly,  Ty.,  Kn., 

Hit.,  Wr.,  Wild.     Gins.'s  explanation,   "to  enjoy  a  delicate  repast," 


in 
is 
one  s 


Il8  ECCLESIASTES 

which  he  bases  on  the  analogy  of  Ex.  i6'8  2128  Is.  2213  and  Ez.  39I8,  is 
wrong.     The  sentiment  of  the  verse  is  that  laziness  is  suicide. 

6.  nSd],  after  this  nnj,  and  ^T2y  are  the  ace.  expressive  of  the  material, 
cf.  Ko.  §333d. — D-'Jcn]  means  the  "two  hollow  hands  full."  It  occurs 
elsewhere  only  in  Ex.  9^  Lv.  1612  Ez.  lo^-  ^  Pr.  30^.  It  is  found  also  in  NH. 
(Yoma,  51),  and  is  kindred  to  Syr.  huphna  and  Eth.  hafdn. — 7.  "'naa'i 
ns-^Ni  •»:«],  a  repetition  of  the  phrase  of  4^  in  which  waw  consecutives 
occur,  see  note  on  41. — 8.  "inN],  on  the  use  of  this,  cf.  Ez.  2,3^^  and  Ko. 
§3i5n. — DJ],  according  to  Ko.  §37ie,  means  "neither." — nNi  p  dj]  (& 
and  ^H  read  nx  dji  p  dj,  which  was  probably  the  pre-Aqiban  read- 
ing. The  pointing  nxi  with  the  accent  Munah  is  unusual.  In  Pr. 
17"  we  find  nx.i  with  Merka.  Cf.  TNx;i  (2^  with  h'Jy^  (223). — vr';\ 
the  Kt.  is  supported  by  ul  and  H  and  is  defended  by  Hit.,  Heil.,  Zo., 
Eur.,  Ty.  and  VI.  It  has  in  its  favor  the  fact  that  the  members  of  the 
body  are  frequently  mentioned  in  pairs  {cf.  Mi.  4"  and  i  K.  i4«-  12). 
The  Qr.  is  supported  by  <g,  IE,  and  ^.  As  the  latter  is  the  reading 
hardest  to  account  for,  it  is  probably  original.  Bick.,  p.  12,  regards 
this  verse  as  the  work  of  a  clumsy  editor.  Zap.  rejects  ^:3n  ht  dj  as  a 
stereotyped  gloss,  Ha.  regards  xin  y-i  ]>y;y  Sin  nr  dj  as-  a  gloss.  These 
opinions  are  only  convincing  to  those  who  hold  the  peculiar  views  of 
their  authors.  The  Hebrew  text  of  BS.  (14^  expresses  the  thought 
of  this  passage  thus: 

nr  j:a;2n"«  in^'-'tooi  nnxV  T>3p>  iiyaj  yjiD 

9-12.  Sieg.,  McN.  and  Ha.  regard  these  vvs.  as  proverbial  additions 
made  by  glossators.  There  can  be  no  doubt  as  to  the  proverbial  char- 
acter of  the  material,  but  it  is  an  open  question  whether  Qoh.  himself 
may  not  have  introduced  them.  They  explain  and  give  definiteness 
to  vs.  8,  but  possibly  may  be  epexegetical  glosses  introduced  by  others. — 
9.  nnxn  and  Tii'n],  the  art.  in  these  words,  as  Ty.,  Del.,  Wr.  and  Ko. 
(§3i3h)  hold,  is  used  because  the  writer  individualizes  two  persons  and 
one  person. — ntt'N]=  "because,"  or  "for,"  cf.  ch.  612  lo'^  Gn.  3o'8 
3427  Dt.  324  Jos.  47  and  Dn.  i'",  also  Ges.K-  §  157a.— 10.  iSo^].  The 
plural  here  denotes  an  indefinite  sing.,  cf.  Ges.'^-  §i57a.  Kn.  com- 
pares "iny-\  Sx  tj'^j^  ncN^ii  in  Gn.  ti'  and  Ju.  629.  Dr.  suggests  that  the 
original  text  may  have  been  Dip*'  jrn  inxn  Sd\  This  is  the  reading 
of  S*,  U,  and  01,  and  seems  probably  correct.  If  so,  the  corruption  of 
MT.  antedates  <&,  for  it  is  supported  by  it. — iS\s]  is  taken  by  (S  and  0 
and  many  Heb.  MSS.  as=  ^S  iix.  So,  among  interpreters,  Kn.,  Gr., 
Del.,  VI.  and  Ko.  (§32ic). —  "'"ix  is  regularly  "woe,"  cf.  Nu.  2129  i  S.  4^ 
Is.  39  and  Ez.  131^  (where  it  is  spelled  mh).  ©  takes  it  as  the  Aram. 
•iS"'X=Heb.  ")S,  "if."  The  former  view  is  correct. — "»x]="woe"  occurs 
in  BH.  only  here  and  ch.  lo'",  but  in  NH.  it  appears  as  "x,  cf.  Ja.,- 
p.  43b. — inxn  1'^},  the   inxn  is  in  apposition  with  the  suffix,  and  the 


POPULARITY  OF  YOUNG  KING     [Ch.  4'3-i6  ng 

suffix  is  anticipatory,  the  prep,  logically  governing  nns,  so,  Hit.,  Gins., 
Del.,  No.,  Eur.,  McN.  and  Ko.  (§§340  o,  343a  and  406a). — "^D^-^.'],  as 
Del.  remarks,  may  be  "who  falls,"  or  "when  he  falls." — iD-'pn'^]  Del. 
and  No.  regard  as  potential. — 11.  dj]  is  often  used  to  introduce  a  new 
thought. — 221']  is  used  regularly  for  lying  down  to  sleep,  see  e.g.,  Gn. 
28".-^on;],  the  conjunction  introduces  the  apodosis,  and  the  construc- 
tion of  the  verb  is  impersonal. — ■1"'X]  is  here  interrogative;  not  so  in  2'6. — 
12.  ^Dp^\']  has  an  impersonal  subject,  i.e.,  the  reader  has  to  supply 
it  from  the  context,  cf.  Ko.  §3  23c.  The  suffix  i-  is  instead  of  the  more 
common  "1.-1-,  see  e.g.,  Job  152^.  The  verb  itself  occurs  only  in  late 
Heb.,  though  also  common  in  NH.,  Aram.  (Biblical,  Nab.  and  Syr.), 
and  in  Sabasan.  Its  ordinary  meaning  is  to  "overpower,"  and  Zo., 
Del.,  Sieg.,  Wild.,  McN.  and  BDB.  so  take  it  here.  The  context,  however, 
requires  here  the  meaning  "attack,"  so  correctly  Kn.,  Wr.,  Ha.  and 
Ges.Bu-  (g  read  ^^n],  making  nnxn  the  subject — a  reading  which  Kn. 
regarded  as  right. — njpj,  the  suffix  refers  to  the  implied  robber,  the 
subject  of  Ipn'.  'The  prep,  following  ir:y  is  more  often  in  such  con- 
structions, ■'JD3  as  in  Jos.  los,  or  njjV  in  Dn.  iqi^. — -.:»'? :^'?:n],  on  the  use 
of  '^^;^  and  deriv.  in  BH.  and  NH.,  cf.  Ko.  §3 12c. — nnnp?]  is  late  Heb. 
for  •i"J'^p.     It  is  parallel  to  the  late  expression  n-^nn  t;_  in  Ps.  14716. 

4'3  '6  set  forth  the  vanity  of  the  popularity  of  certain  young  kings 
who  are  not  named. 

".  Better  is  a  youth  poor  and  wise  than  a  king  old  and  foolish,  who 
no  longer  knows  how  to  be  admonished,  i^  Though  from  the  house 
of  the  rebellious  he  came  forth — although  even  in  his  kingdom  he  was 
born  poor,  i^,  j  saw  all  the  living  who  walk  under  the  sun  with  [the 
second]  youth,  who  shall  stand  in  his  stead,  i^.  There  was  no  end  to  all 
the  people — all  whose  leader  he  was — moreover  those  who  come  after 
could  not  delight  in  him.     For  this  also  is  vanity  and  a  desire  of  wind. 

13.  Better  is  a  youth  poor  and  wise].  The  word  youth  is  applied 
to  children  (i  S.  y)  and  to  men  at  least  forty  years  of  age  (i  K. 
128).  In  the  East  great  deference'  has  always  been  paid  to  age. 
This  vagueness  presents  a  difficulty  in  the  interpretation  of  this 
vs.  Many  theories  as  to  whom  Qoheleth  refers^  have  been  put 
forth.  The  Targum  makes  it  a  contrast  between  Abraham  and 
Nimrod;  the  Midrash,  between  Joseph  and  Pharaoh,  or  David 
and  Saul.  Joash  and  Amaziah,  Cyrus  and  Astyages,  the  high 
priest  Onias  and  his  nephew  Joseph,  have  also  been  suggested. 
Graetz  believed  that  the  reference  was  to  Herod  the  Great  and 
his  son  Alexander;  Hitzig,  to  Ptolemy  Philipator,  who,  weak  and 


I20  ECCLESIASTES 

headstrong,  had  been  beaten  by  Antiochus  III,  and  Ptolemy 
Epiphanes,  who  came  to  the  Egyptian  throne  in  205  B.C.  at  the 
age  of  five;  Winckler  believes  the  contrast  to  be  between  Antiochus 
Epiphanes  and  Demetrius  I;  Haupt,  between  Antiochus  Epiph- 
anes and  Alexander  Balas — a  view  which  would  be  tempting,  if 
one  could  bring  the  book  down  as  late  as  Haupt  does.  Alexander 
Balas  was  a  youth  of  humble  origin  {cf.  Justin,  xxxv,  i),  who  pre- 
tended to  be  the  son  of  Antiochus.  Balas  was  friendly  to  the  Jews 
(i  Mac.  10").  This  would  seem  very  tempting,  if  the  external 
evidence  did  not  make  it  certain  that  the  book  \yas  written  before 
175  B.C.  (See  Introduction,  §§ii,  15).  This  evidence  makes  it 
probable  that  Hitzig  was  right  and  that  the  "wise  youth"  is  one 
of  the  Ptolemies,  perhaps  Ptolemy  V,  who  in  205  B.C.  succeeded 
his  aged  father  Ptolemy  IV.  Ptolemy  V  was  but  five  years  old 
when  he  came  to  the  throne. — 14.  House  of  the  rebellions]  prob- 
ably refers  to  the  Ptolemaic  dynasty.  It  is  so  designated  because 
Ptolemy  IV  persecuted  the  Jews;  see  3  Mace.  Symmachus,  the 
Targum,  Wang.,  Del.,  Wr.  and  Vl.  take  the  last  clause  of  the 
verse  to  refer  to  the  old  king,  but  it  is  better  with  McN.  and  Haupt 
to  take  the  whole  verse  as  referring  to  the  youth. — 15.  All  the  living 
who  walk  under  the  sun\  an  hyperbolical  expression  of  popular 
enthusiasm  upon  the  young  king's  succession. — Second  youth.] 
Second  is  here  a  difficulty  and  has  been  variously  explained. 
Ewald,  whom  Marshall  follows,  thought  it  analogous  to  "second" 
in  Gn.  ^1^^,  i.e.,  it  designated  a  youth  who  held  the  second  place 
in  the  kingdom  and  who  usurped  the  throne.  Kn.,  Del.  and  Wr. 
held  that  the  youth  is  "second,"  the  old  king,  his  predecessor, 
being  first.  Del.  cites  as  analogies  the  use  of  "other,"  Mt. 
82>,  and  "others,"  Lk.  23^2.  The  expression  and  interpretation  are, 
however,  unnatural.  As  McN.  declares  it  can  only  mean  a  second 
youth.  Bick.,  Sieg.,  Ha.  and  Dr.  (the  last  hesitatingly)  regard 
second  as  a  disturbing  gloss.  Erase  this,  and  we  have,  on  Hitzig's 
view,  a  picture  of  the  enthusiasm  with  which  Ptolemy  V  was 
greeted.  If  second  is  genuine,  it  would,  on  our  view,  be  a  reference 
to  the  enthusiasm  which  greeted  Antiochus  III  when  he  conquered 
Jerusalem  in  198  B.C.  {cf.  Jos.  Ant.  xii,  3^). — Who  shall  stand], 
future,  because  spoken  from  the  point  of  view  of  the  moment  when 


POPULARITY  OF  YOUNG  KING     [Ch.  4'^'«  121 

the  enthusiasm  burst  out. — In  his  stead],  i.e.,  if  "second"  is  genu- 
ine, in  place  of  the  first  youth. — 16.  No  end  of  all  the  people],  hyper- 
bole again,  referring  to  the  young  king's  accession.  Those  who 
came  after],  in  a  short  time  the  popularity  of  Epiphanes 
waned  because  of  the  corruption  of  his  advisers.  Then  Anti- 
ochus  III  (200-198)  attached  Palestine  to  Syria,  and  was  gladly 
received  by  the  Jews.  See  Bevan,  House  of  Seleuciis,  II,  37,  and 
Jos.  Ant.  xii,  y. — This  also  is  vanity],  the  old  refrain.  Specific 
cases  have  demonstrated  the  fleeting  character  even  of  royal 
prestige.  If  these  are  not  the  real  instances  of  which  Qoheleth 
was  thinking,  he  had  similar  ones  in  mind. 

13.  3Vd],  i.e.,  better  suited  to  govern,  cf.  what  is  said  of  a  high  priest, 
Horayoth,  38. — l^DCj,  poor,  occurs  in  BH.  only  here  and  in  ch.  g^^-  i«. 
It  is  not  uncommon  in  Aram.,  see  e.g.,  the  ul  of  this  passage,  and  to  Dt. 
8'.  In  Babylonian  (Code  of  Hammurabi)  the  word  occurs  as  miskenu 
and  designates  the  lowest  class  of  citizens  above  slaves  (cf.  Code,  col. 
vi,  65,  and  CT.,  XII,  16,  42b).  The  root  pD,  "to  be  poor,"  occurs  in 
Is.  4020,  and  njrpr?,  "poverty,"  in  Dt.  S^.  Just  why  it  should  be  applied 
to  Ptolemy  V,  we  know  too  little  of  the  history  of  the  times  to  tell. 
Possibly  the  word  is  an  early  gloss  added  by  some  one  who  did  not  per- 
ceive that  the  reference  was  to  a  royal  youth. — iS;:]  is  used  not  only  of 
boys,  but  of  Joseph  when  17  years  old  (Gn.  37^"),  and  of  the  companions 
of  Jeroboam  who  were  about  40  years  old  (i  K.  128).  Here,  however, 
the  reference  is  to  a  real  boy. — nnu]  is  usually  explained  as  from 
-inr,  "to  be  bright,"  but  this  is  doubtful  (cf.  BDB.  264a).  In  Niph. 
and  Hiph.  it  means  "warn,"  or  "admonish,"  cf.  ch.  12^2  Ez.  320  33'' -^  and 
Ps.  1912.  'A,  S,  and  0  render  tov  (pvXd^ejdaL,  "to  be  on  one's  guard," 
but  this  destroys  the  parallelism. — 14.  amDi],  some  MSS.  and  (B,  U, 
read  omDNn  (see  Baer  and  Dr.).  AE.,  Kn.,  Heil.,  Gins.,  Heng., 
Del.,  Wr.,  No.,  VI.,  Eur.,  McN.,  Kam.  and  Ges.K-  (§35d)  hold  this  to 
be  the  true  rendering  on  the  ground  that  in  late  Heb.  n  is  often  dropped . 
B  and  Ul  give  the  word  a  different  interpretation,  and  Ew.,  Hit.,  Dale  and 
Ha.  take  it  from  mD,  "to  turn,"  the  derivatives  of  which  may  mean 
"rebels,"  or  "outcasts"  (cf.  Je.  2^1  1713).  This  I  believe  to  be  nearer 
the  truth. — NX'']  is  perf.  Gr.'s  contention  that  it  is  imperf.,  was  huta.  tour 
de  force  to  fit  his  theory. — DJi  ^d],  it  is  better  to  take  this  as  "although" 
with  most  interpreters  (cf.  Ko.  §394f)  than  as  "for"  with  McN.  For 
the  sake  of  consistency,  however,  the  first  O  should  be  rendered 
"though."— ipidSc^],  the  suffix  probably  refers  to  the  "youth,"  not 
to  the  old  king  as  2,  ®,  Wang.,  Del.,  Wr.  and  VI.  held. — iSu]  prob- 
ably has  here  its  usual  meaning.     It  is  true,  as  Ty.,  Gins,  and  Gr  hold, 


122  ECCLESIASTES 

that  in  the  Mishna  it  means  "arise"  or  ''become"  (c/.  Terumoth,  8^, 
Ned.,  9',  and  Temurah,  3^),  but  a  more  natural  meaning  is  obtained 
by  taking  it  in  its  ordinary  sense.  It  then  means  that  the  "youth" 
was  born  poor  in  the  kingdom  which  he  afterward  ruled.  Possibly 
this  last  clause,  like  pDD,  is  a  gloss,  though  it  may  possibly  refer 
to  the  impoverished  state  of  Egypt  at  Ptolemy  V's  accession  on 
account  of  political  disorders  in  the  preceding  reign.  Cf.  Poly- 
bius,  V,  107,  and  XIV,  12.— 15.  □o'^non],  the  Piel  part.  The  Kal  is 
more  common,  cf.  Is.  42^. — •'jt:']  is  supported  by  all  the  Versions,  and 
is  probably  not  a  gloss,  as  Bick.,  Sieg.,  Ha.  and  Kit.  hold. — a;], 
"with,"  in  the  sense  of  "on  the  side  of,"  cf.  Gn.  21^2  26'. — "'d;'-'],  in  the 
sense  of  "reign"  or  "  arise,"  see  BDB.  764a.  Its imperf .  tense  is  paralleled 
2  K.  3"  and  Job  1525.  nnn  is  often  used  of  a  successor  to  a  throne,  see 
e.g.,  2  S.  10^  and  2  Ch.  i^. — 16.  D''jnnNn]  often  means  "posterity" 
(cf.  i"  and  Is.  41^),  but  here  probably  simply  "those  who  come  after." 
If  we  are  right  in  our  interpretation  of  the  passage,  but  seven  years  had 
passed. — dhijdS  n^n -\-.:'n]="  before  whom  he  was,"  i.e.,  whose  leader 
he  was,  cf.  Ps.  68*  and  2  Ch.  ii",  thus  Ros.,  Ges.,  Gins.,  Del.  and  Wr. 
Ew.  misunderstood  it  and  made  on-  refer  to  the  two  preceding  kings. 
g>,  B  and  (5  changed  Dn-  to  ")-,  misunderstanding  it  also. — djJ  is  ad- 
versative, cf.  Ko.  §373n.     . 

5>  -7  (Heb.  4"-5«)  treats  of  shams  in  religion. 

51  (417).  Guard  thy  foot  when  thou  goest  to  the  house  of  God,  and 
to  draw  near  to  obey  is  better  than  that  fools  should  give  sacrifice,  for 
they  do  not  know  (except)  to  do  evil.  ^(i).  Do  not  be  rash  with  thy 
mouth  and  let  not  thy  heart  be  hasty  to  utter  a  word  before  God,  for 
God  is  in  heaven  and  thou  on  the  earth,  therefore  let  thy  words  be  few. 

3(2).  For  dreams  come  through  a  multitude  of  business. 

And  the  voice  of  a  fool  through  a  multitude  of  words. 

4(3).  When  thou  vowest  a  vow  to  God,  do  not  delay  to  fulfil  it,  for  there 
is  no  delight  in  fools,  what  thou  vowest  fulfil.  ^'^^K  Better  is  it  that 
thou  shouldst  not  vow  than  that  thou  shouldst  vow  and  not  fulfil. 
*(*).'  Do  not  permit  thy  mouth  to  make  thy  flesh  to  sin,  and  do  not 
speak  in  the  presence  of  the  angel,  for  it  is  an  error,  Why  should  God 
be  angry  at  thy  voice  and  destroy  the  work  of  thy  hands,  ^(*>.  {For  in 
a  multitude  of  dreams  and  words  are  many  vanities),  but  fear  thou  God. 

5'  (4''^).  Guard  thy  foot].  Do  not  run  to  the  place  of  worship 
thoughtlessly,  or  because  it  is  the  fashion  to  go  frequently,  but  con- 
sider the  nature  of  the  place  and  thy  purpose  in  going.  Inter- 
preted by  what  follows,  this  is  the  meaning. — The  house  of  God]^ 


SHAMS  IN  RELIGION    [Ch.  S^-^  1 23 

often  used  in  the  OT.  for  the  temple,  cf.  2  S.  1220  Is.  371.  It 
probably  means  that  here,  though  some  think  it  the  synagogue. 
Whether  it  is  to  be  regarded  as  temple  or  synagogue  depends  upon 
how  we  interpret  the  next  clause. — To  obey  is  better  than  that  fools 
should  give  sacrifice].  The  sentiment  recalls  i  S.  15"  Am.  52^-  " 
Mi.  6^-  8.  If  this  sacrifice  is  to  be  taken  Hterally,  Qoh.  was  think- 
ing of  the  temple ;  if  it  is  to  be  interpreted  by  the  following  verse  as 
figurative  for  words,  he  may  have  referred  to  the  synagogue.  On 
the  whole,  it  is  more  probable  that  this  verse  refers  to  the  well- 
known  contrast  between  literal  sacrifice  and  obedience,  and  that 
the  next  verse  takes  up  a  new  topic,  unless  we  interpret  vows  as. 
votive  sacrifices. — Know  except  to  do  evil].  They  go  from  their 
sacrifices  with  an  easy  conscience  to  plunge  again  into  evil. — 2  (". 
Rash  with  thy  month  .  .  .  titter  a  word].  This  is  explained  in  vs.  4 
to  refer  to  vows. — God  is  in  heaven].  The  belief  in  the  transcen- 
dence and  aloofness  of  God,  Qoheleth  shared  with  his  age,  cf.  Ps. 
1 153.     The  verse  is  paraphrased  in  BS.  7^^ 

3  ^-K  Sieg.  and  Ha.  are  right  in  regarding  this  verse  as  a  gloss. 
It  is  a  proverb,  kindred  to  5^  and  in  reality  breaks  the  connection 
of  the  thought  here.  It  was  probably  introduced  because  the 
reference  to  a  fool's  multitude  of  words  seemed  kindred  in  mean- 
ing to  vs.  4(3),  It  has  a  proverbial  form  and  is  apparently  the 
work  of  the  Hokma  glossator.  The  sentiment  of  the  first  part  of 
the  vs.  is  expressed  in  BS.  31' -^ — Dreams  come  through  a  midtitude 
of  business].  The  words  apparently  mean  that  one  who  is  worried 
with  cares  cannot  sleep,  but  in  that  case  there  is  little  connection 
with  the  next  clause.  Tyler  thought  the  ''multitude  of  business" 
referred  to  the  multiplicity  of  images  and  the  confused  action  of  a 
troubled  dream.  This  would  make  the  parallel  with  the  "  words 
of  a  fool "  closer.  If  this  is  the  meaning  it  is  not  clearly  expressed, 
but  not  all  popular  proverbs  are  clear. 

4  ^^\  When  thou  vowest  a  vow].  This  is  taken  with  as  little 
change  as  possible  from  Dt.  2321.  For  other  statements  about 
vows,  cf.  Nu.  303  Ps.  50'^ — Do  not  delay  to  fulfil].  Hasty  vows 
were  not  infrequent  in  later  Judaism,  and  many  evasions  were  at- 
tempted, as  the  Talmudic  tract  Nedarim  shows.  On  vows  of 
the  sort  here  referred  to,  see  Gn.  2820  Lv.  27  Ju.  ii^o  Jos.,  BJ. 


124 


ECCLESIASTES 


ii,  iS^',cf.  also  Mk.  7"  Acts  iS^*  2123. — There  is  no  delight  in  fools]. 
God  has  no  delight  in  them.  Vows  are  the  favorite  resort  of  the 
foolish.  They  think  to  bribe  Providence. — What  thou  vowest  ful- 
fil]. Thisexpressesinanotherway  the  meaning  of  Dt.  23"  ".  The 
verse  is  quoted  in  BS.  18". — 5  ^^K  Better  not  to  vow],  for  one  is  then 
at  least  honest.  Qoheleth's  point  of  view  on  this  point  is  similar 
to  that  of  Acts 5^ — 6  ^'"K  Do  not  permit  thy  mouth]  by  rash  vows. — 
Thy  Flesh].  Flesh  here  stands  for  the  whole  personality;  perhaps 
it  is  used  here  because  the  Jews  thought  of  punishment  as  corporal. — 
In  the  presence  of  the  angel].  This  has  been  variously  interpreted: 
(i)  It  has  been  held  that  angel  is  a  later  and  morejreverent  way  of 
alluding  to  God.  This  view  has  in  its  favor  the  fact  that  CI  and 
^  actually  read  ''God"  here.  (2)  That  angel  (literally  messenger) 
is  God's  representative — either  prophet  as  in  Hg.  i'"  Mai.  3',  or 
a  priest  as  in  Mai.  2^ — here,  of  course,  a  priest.  (3)  That  we 
should  translate  "messenger,"  and  regard  it  as  a  temple  messenger 
who  recorded  vows  and  collected  the  dues.  Probably  the  first  in- 
terpretation is  right. — Error],  a  sin  of  inadvertence. — Why  should 
God  be  angry].  Qoheleth  has  much  the  same  idea  of  God  as  that 
which  underhes  our  expression,  "tempting  Providence." — 7  <^^  For 
in  a  midtitude  of  dreams  and  words  are  many  vanities].  This  is  an- 
other interpolated  proverb,  corresponding  to  vs.  3.  It  interrupts 
the  connection. — But  fear  thou  God].  This  is  the  conclusion  to 
vs.  6. 

1-7.  McN.  regards  these  verses  as  the  work  of  the  Chasid  glossator, 
and  Sieg.  assigns  vvs.  i  and  2  to  Q* — a  term  which  covers  a  mass  of  glosses. 
One  with  so  keen  an  eye  for  glosses  as  Ha.  has,  however,  regarded 
vvs.  I  and  2  as  genuine.  Really  the  whole  section,  except  vvs.  3  and  7a, 
is  Q.'s  work.  Because  he  held  a  Sadducaean  point  of  view,  he  was  not 
prevented  from  speaking  of  religion. — 1  (4'').  y^>^\  is,  according  to 
Qr.,  "I'^J"*,  a  reading  which  is  supported  by  160  MSS.  and  <^,  g*,  and  U, 
and  is  probably  right.  Analogies  can  be  adduced  for  the  plural  {e.g., 
Ps.  1 1959)  and  for  the  sing.  (Ps.  iigi^s  Pr.  i'^  426).  go  far  as  the  meaning 
goes,  it  is  a  matter  of  indifference  which  reading  is  followed. — ia'N3]= 
"when,"  as  in  Gn.  iS^s.  (5,  0  and  Tal.,  Jer.,  Berak.,  4*,  71',  and  Megill., 
71C,  Tosephta,  ly-,  read  "i-'xa  by  mistake. — 3np]  was  taken  by  Ros.,De  W. 
and  others  as  an  inf.  continuing  the  imperative  construction,  but  recent 
interpreters  (Kn.,  Del.,  Wr.,  No.,  Zo.,  VI.,  Ha.  and  Ko.  (§223a)  rightly 
regard  it  as  an  inf.  used  as  the  subject. — rinn],  avj  is  to  be  supplied 


OPPRESSION,  DESPOTISM,  RICHES     [Ch-S^-G^  1 25 

in  thought  before  this,  as  in  g^^,  cf.  Ges  k-  §1336,  and  Ko.  §3080.  (I, 
0,  and  V  take  the  word  as  a  noun =" gift,"  but  this  is  an  error. 
— n:3i  d^Sddh]  ^  read  dS^ddh  n^r. — ;n  mryS  o>yii>  oj^n]  has  occasioned 
much  trouble.  It  naturally  seems  to  mean  "they  do  not  know  (how) 
to  do  evil,"  which  is  obviously  contrary  to  Q.'s  thought.  Kn.  under- 
stood it  "they  do  not  know  when  they  do  evil,"  Del.  and  Eur.  "ignor- 
ance makes  for  evil  doing,"  Re.  supplied  on  tj  before  niU'yS,  while 
Sieg.,  whom  McN.  follows,  emends  to  nr^'Sn.  One  of  these  emenda- 
tions has  to  be  made,  the  last  is  the  simplest,  as  the  0  may  easily  have  fallen 
out  after  D-im^.  The  error  is  older  than  any  of  the  Vrss.,  for  they  all 
support  MT. — 2  o.  ""fl  S;*]  is  a  not  uncommon  expression,  see  Ex.  231' 
Ps.  50'fi  Pr.  1610.  Parallel  expressions  are  iJi'*?  h';  Ps.  15',  and  TiflK'  hy 
Pr.  1610.  D>n'^Nn  >jq^],  i.e.,  where  God  is,  in  his  house;  cf.  Ex.  i69 
1812  Dt.  1425  1520  Is.  ^yu_—o>'^';r.],  as  a  plural  predicate  (cf.  Ko.  §334b), 
occurs  elsewhere  only  in  Ps.  1098.  It  is  a  late  and  rare  usage.  This 
verse  is  paraphrased  in  BS.  7",  see  Heb.  text. — 3  (2).  oi^nn],  the  art.  is 
used  to  make  the  sing,  stand  for  a  class,  cf.  Ges."^-  §i26r. — piy],  see 
on  I".  S  read  dvoiJ.ias=]y;  (iniquity). --Jan:]]  3  is  instrumental,  cf. 
Hb.  2*  and  Ps.  1912. — 4  (3).  -)tt>X3]  corresponds  tcrof  Dt.  2322. — inNn  Sn] 
to  nnsn  nS  of  the  same  passage.  Ha.,  for  metrical  reasons,  erases 
Oi.-iSnS]  as  a  gloss. — fon]  means  usually  "delight,"  "pleasure."  As 
the  "delight"  of  Yahweh  is  his  "will,"  also  PI.  takes  it  to  mean  "fixed 
purpose,"  i.e.,  "there  is  no  fixed  purpose  in  fools" — not  enough  to  fulfil 
a  vow.  Such  a  meaning  would  be  attractive,  if  it  had  lexical  authority, 
but  it  has  none.  Cf  Is.  62^. — D'^!r>  i^n  -\-i'N  pn].  Zap.  erases  this  as  a 
gloss  for  metrical  reasons. — Q^^K  ]r>i],  in  the  sense  of  "permit,"  takes 
-an  ace.  of  the  object  and  dat.  of  the  end,  cf  Gn.  2o«  31^  Ex.  319  Nu.  22^3 
Ju.  i34  Job  313".  Sometimes  h  is  omitted  as  in  Job  9I8. — i<''^D^]  is  for 
Nvonn'^,  cf  Ges.K-  §53q.— Ix'^d],  instead  (S  and  B  read  D^nSx^  which 
was  probably  the  original  reading.  r\n'^]  is  often  used  in  Lv.  and  Nu. 
for  sins  of  error  or  inadvertence,  BDB.,  cf,  e.g.,  Lv.  42-  22.  27  an(^  ]sju_ 
j^26.  27.  28.  29^  Such  sins  were  readily  atoned  by  offerings. — no'^j  is  used 
in  Heb.  idiom  as  we  would  use  "lest,"  cf.  Ko.  §354e. — 7  (6).  The  first 
part  of  the  vs.  is  a  proverbial  interpolation,  but  its  text  is  evidently  cor- 
rupt. It  is  probably  a  variant  of  vs.  3,  and  was  written  on  the 
margin,  afterward  creeping  into  the  text.  The  simplest  emendation 
is  to  suppose  that  0>^2n  and  Dn:2T  have  been  accidentally  transposed. 
It  is  thus  translated  above.  (B,  B,  'B,  2C,  read  nrivS  for  pn,  which  reading 
is  to  be  followed. 

58(7). — 69  treats  of  oppression:    (i)  Of  despotic  government,  58,9; 
(2)  Of  riches,  510-69. 

58  (7).  If  thou  seest  oppression  of  a  poor  man  and  the  wresting  of 
justice  and  right  in  a  province,  do  not  look  in  astonishment  at  the 


126  ECCLESIASTES 

matter,  for  one  high  officer  is  watching  above  another,  and  there  are 
higher  ones  above  them.  »  <»'.  But  an  advantage  to  a  country  on  the 
whole  is  a  king — (i.e.)  an  agricultural  land. 

10  (9),  He  who  loves  silver  will  not  be  satisfied  with  silver,  nor  who 
loves  riches,  with  gain;  also  this  is  vanity.  "  ('").  When  goods  in- 
crease, eaters  of  them  increase,  and  what  profit  has  their  owner  except 
the  sight  of  his  eyes?  ^^  do.  Sweet  is  the  sleep  of  the  laborer,  whether 
he  eat  little  or  much,  but  the  satiety  of  the  rich  does  not  permit  him 
to  sleep.  '^  ('2).  There  is  a  sore  evil  which  I  have  seen  under  the 
sun, — wealth  guarded  by  its  owner  to  his  hurt.  "  '^^^K  And  that  wealth 
perished  in  an  unlucky  adventure,  and  he  begat  a  son  and  there 
was  nothing  in  his  hand.  ^^  ('^^  As  he  came  naked  from  the  womb 
of  his  mother,  he  shall  go  again  as  he  came;  and  nothing  shall  he  re- 
ceive through  his  labor,  which  he  can  carry  in  his  hand.  ^^  (is).  Also 
this  is  a  sore  evil — exactly  as  he  came  so  shall  he  go,  and  what  ad- 
vantage is  it  to  him  that  he  toiled  for  wind.  "  (i^).  Also  all  his  days 
he  is  in  darkness  and  mourning  and  much  vexation  and  sickness  and 
anger. 

18  (17),  Behold  what  I  saw, — a  good  that  is  beautiful  is  it  to  eat  and 
drink  and  to  see  good  in  all  one's  toil  which  he  toils  under  the  sun  the 
number  of  the  days  of  his  life  which  God  gives  him,  for  that  is  his  lot. 

19  (18).  Also  every  man  to  whom  God  has  given  riches  and  wealth  and 
has  empowered  him  to  eat  of  it  and  to  take  up  his  lot  and  to  rejoice  in 
his  work — this  is  the  gift  of  God.  20  (19),  Yot  he  will  not  much  think 
on  the  days  of  his  life,  for  God  occupies  him  with  the  joy  of  his  heart. 

6'.  There  is  an  evil  which  I  have  seen  under  the  sun,  and  it  is  heavy 
upon  mankind;  2,  A  man  to  whom  God  has  given  riches  and  wealth 
and  honor  and  he  lacks  nothing  fpr  himself  of  all  that  he  desires,  but 
God  has  not  empowered  him  to  eat  of  it,  but  a  stranger  eats  of  it — this 
is  vanity  and  an  evil  disease.  ^.  Though  a  man  beget  a  hundred  (chil- 
dfen),  and  live  many  years  and  multiplied  are  the  days  of  his  years,  but 
his  soul  is  not  satisfied  with  good,  and  also  he  has  no  burial, — I  have  seen 
that  an  untimely  birth  is  better  than  he.  *.  For  into  vanity  it  came  and 
into  darkness  it  shall  go  and  with  darkness  shall  its  name  be  covered. 
6.  Yea  the  sun  it  saw  not,  nor  had  knowledge.  This  has  more  rest  than 
the  other.  ^.  And  if  he  live  a  thousand  years  twice  over  and  good  he 
does  not  see, — are  not  both  going  unto  the  same  place  ? 

7.  All  the  toil  of  man  is  for  his  mouth, 
And  yet  his  appetite  is  not  satisfied. 

8.  For  what  advantage  has  the  wise  man  over  the  fool,  and  what  the 
poor  who  knows  how  to  walk  before  the  living  ?  9.  Better  is  the  sight 
of  the  eyes  than  the  wandering  of  desire.  This  also  is  vanity  and  a  de- 
sire of  wind. 


OPPRESSION,  DESPOTISM,  RICHES    [Ch-S^-S^  127 

5«  ^''K  Oppression].  The  unequal  oppressions  of  life  may  lead 
one  to  pessimism -(r/.  ch.  4'^  ),  but  when  he  considers  how  an 
Oriental  state  is  organized  and  governed  he  does  not  marvel  at  it. 
— Wresting  of  justice  and  right].  The  constant  complaint  against 
Oriental  rule,  where  each  official  looks  out  for  his  own  interests, 
from  time  immemorial  to  the  present  day. — One  high  officer  is 
watching  above  another],  an  excellent  description  of  a  satrapial 
system.  The  appropriateness  of  this  remark  to  Qoheleth's  line 
of  thought  lies  in  the  fact  that  these  officials  were  watching,  not, 
as  a  rule,  that  justice  might  be  done  to  the  poor,  but  to  squeeze 
revenue  out  of  the  petty  officials  under  them.  As  each  officer  was 
an  oppressor,  no  wonder  that  the  poor  peasant — the  lowest  stratum 
of  the  heap — should  be  squeezed. — Higher  ones  above  them]. 
This  is  perhaps  an  impersonal  allusion  to  the  king. — 9  ^^K  An  ad- 
vantage to  a  country  on  the  whole  is  a  king].  Qoheleth  thinks  that, 
after  all,  monarchy  has  some  advantages.  Others  have  thought 
that  even  kings  like  Herod  had  some  good  points  (cf.  Jos.  Ant. 
xvi,  91),  in  that  they  prevented  plundering  raids  and  rendered 
agriculture  secure. 

10  <*>.  He  who  loves  silver],  perhaps  this  reflection  was 
suggested  by  the  rapacity  of  the  officials  referred  to  in  vs.  8.  It 
serves  as  the  starting-point  for  some  reflections  upon  the"  vanity 
of  riches. — Will  not  be  satisfied].  The  miser  is  always  poor,  be- 
cause his  desire  is  not  satisfied. — 11  (i").  What  profit  has  their 
owner  except  the  sight  of  his  eyes?].  One  can  really  enjoy  but  a 
limited  amount  of  wealth,  he  who  has  more,  has  only  the  pleasure 
of  seeing  others  consume  it.  For  similar  sentiments,  cf.  Herod., 
I,  32 ;  Horace,  Satires,  1,V'^^-,  and  Xenophon,  Cyroped.,  VIII,  335-n. 
A  part  of  the  last  passage  (§40)  is  particularly  in  harmony  with 
our  text:  "Do  you  think,  Sacian,  that  I  live  with  more  pleasure 
the  more  I  possess?  Do  you  not  know  that  I  neither  eat,  nor 
drink,  nor  sleep,  with  a  particle  more  pleasure  than  when  I  was 
poor?  But  by  having  this  abundance  I  gain  merely  this,  that  I 
have  to  guard  more,  to  distribute  more  to  others,  and  to  have  the 
trouble  of  taking  care  of  more." — 12  <">.  Sweet  is  the  sleep  of  the 
laborer].  Qoheleth  recognizes  that  the  healthy  out-door  life  of 
the  peasant  has  some  blessings  which  money  not  only  cannot  buy, 


128  ECCLESIASTES 

but  which  it  destroys. — 13  <'->.  Wealth  guarded  by  its  owner  to  his 
hurt],  i.e.,  guarded  at  the  expense  of  anxiety  and  sleeplessness. — 

14  ^'^'.  Unlucky  adventure],  such  as  speculation  in  a  caravan  which 
robbers  capture. — He  begat  a  son  and  there  was  nothing  in  his 
hand].     After  all  his  anxiety  he  has  nothing  ^o  leave  his  offspring. 

15  ^'^'.  As  he  came  naked].  Probably,  as  Del.  remarked,  Qoheleth 
has  Job  1 21  in  mind.  For  similar  thoughts,  see  Ps.  49'"  and 
I  Tim.  6'. — 16  ^^^'.  Both  this  vs.  and  the  preceding  were  suggested 
by  ''father"  in  vs.  14. — What  advantage],  perhaps,  refers  back  to 
the  father,  as  Graetz  thought. — Toiled  for  wind],  a  figurative 
expression  for  nothingness,  only  in  late  writings.  Cf.  Is.  26'*  Pr. 
1 1 29. — 17  '•^^K  All  his  days  he  is  in  darkness].  The  vs.  refers  to  the 
self-denial  and  mental  distresses  of  those  who  are  bent  upon  the 
accumulation  of  wealth.  Qoheleth's  thought  reminds  us  of  that 
in  I  Tim.  6^,  "They  that  desire  to  be  rich  fall  into  a  temptation 
and  a  snare  and  many  foolish  and  hurtful  lusts." 

18  '■^''K  A  good  that  is  beautiful  is  to  eat].  In  contrast  to  the 
evils  incident  to  the  accumulation  of  wealth  given  in  vs.  17,  Qoheleth 
advocates  the  enjoyment  of  life  as  one  goes  along,  claiming  that 
this  is  the  order  of  Hfe  appointed  man  by  God.  It  is  an  iteration 
of  his  fundamental  philosophy.  The  sentiment  probably  refers 
to  rational  enjoyment  of  present  good,  in  contrast  to  miserly  self- 
denial  for  the  sake  of  hoarding. — 19  ^^^K  This  is  the  gift  of  God]. 
This  expresses  the  same  thought  as  vs.  18  in  a  different  way. 
The  way  in  which  Qoheleth  dwells  upon  the  idea  shows  how  heart- 
ily he  was  in  favor  of  getting  rational  enjoyment  as  one  goes  along. 
The  vs.  is  quoted  and  opposed  in  Wisdom  2". — 20  ('^>.  Will  not 
much  think].  One  will  not  brood  over  life's  brevity,  if  it  is  full  of 
proper  enjoyment.  Qoheleth  sees  no  very  bright  ray  illuminating 
life,  but  believes  in  being  content  with  such  satisfactions  as  God 
has  allotted  to  man.     On  the  sentiment,  cf.  Hor.  Epist.  I,  4,  7: 

Di  tib't  divitias  dederunt  artenujue  frucndi. 

6^  Tliere  is  an  evil].  The  phrase  introduces  the  following 
verse. — 2.  Has  given  riches  and  wealth  and  honor].  This  descrip- 
tion is  almost  identical  with  that  in  5'%  where  Qoheleth  described 
what  he  regarded  as  the  right  course  of  life  for  a  prosperous  man. 


OPPRESSION,  DESPOTISM,  RICHES    [Ch.5^6«  129 

The  description  is  purposely  repeated  here  in  order  to  set  forth 
what  inQoheleth's  judgment  is  one  of  Hfe's  greatest  misfortunes.— 
God  has  not  empowered  him  to  eat  of  it].  "To  eat"  is  used  in  the 
sense  of  "enjoy,"  cf.  Is.  3'°  Je.  i5'«.  Perhaps  he  does  not  enjoy 
it  through  worry,  or  because  in  the  hard  processes  of  obtaining  it 
he  has  lost  the  power  of  enjoyment. — A  stranger  eats  of  it].  He  has 
not  even  a  son  to  inherit  it,  its  real  enjoyment  is  obtained  by  an- 
other.— 3.  Though  a  man  beget  a  hundred  children].  A  numerous 
offspring  was  to  the  ancient  Hebrew  an  object  of  great  desire,  and 
its  possession  regarded  as  a  great  blessing,  cf,  e.g.,  Gn.  24^0  and 
Ps.  1273-5. — A  hundred]  is  simply  a  round  number,  cf.  Gn.  26'2 
2  S.  243  and  Pr.  1710. — And  live  many  years].  Long  life  was  also 
regarded  as  one  of  the  most  desirable  blessings,  cf.  Ex.  20^2  Dt. 
1 1 9-  21  and  Pr.  2^'\—Soul  is  not  satisfied  with  good],  i.e.,  he  does 
not  obtain  that  enjoyment  praised  in  5 19. — Also  he  has  no  burial]. 
The  ancient  Semites,  hke  the  ancient  Greeks,  attached  great  im- 
portance to  proper  burial.  At  the  end  of  the  Gil ga  mesh  epic  are 
the  following  lines  (cf.  KB.,  VI,  265): 

He  whose  dead  body  is  thrown  on  the  field, 

Thou  hast  seen,  I  see, 
His  spirit  rests  not  in  the  earth. 
He  whose  spirit  has  no  caretaker 

Thou  hast  seen,  I  see, 
The  dregs  of  the  pot,  the  remnants  of  food, 
What  is  thrown  in  the  street,  must  eat. 

This  idea  prevailed  widely  among  the  Greeks.  Much  of  the  plot 
of  the  Antigone  of  Sophocles  turns  upon  it.  It  also  prevailed 
among  the  Hebrews, r/.  Is.  1419-  2"  Je.  i6^  ^  job  2132.  33  Tobit  i'*  2'^ 
I  Mac.  r^  2  Mac.  s'°  13',  see  also  Schwally, Z^^^;?  nach  dem  Tode, 
48-51,  and  54-59-  Plumtre's  idea  that  the  importance  attached 
to  burial  here  is  due  to  Greek  influence,  is  quite  wrong. — 
Untimely  birth],  cf.  Job  3'«  Ps.  58^—4.  Into  vanity  it  came],  i.e., 
intoalifelessexistence.— With  darkness  shall  its  name  be  covered]. 
As  Delitzsch  observes,  it  really  has  no  name.  The  Hebrew  way 
of  saying  this  is  the  above.  As  in  Job  y'  and  Ps.  58%  the  untimely 
birth  is  an  example  of  something  that  has  no  sensations  cither  of 
good  or  evil,  and  which  leaves  no  memory  behind  it.     It  can  be 


130  ECCLESIASTES 

conscious  of  no  loss  or  suffering,  hence  in  comparison  with  the  un- 
fortunate in  question,  Qoheleth  regards  it  fortunate. — 5.  Yea  the 
sun  it  saw  not].  The  lifeless  foetus  escaped  all  sensation. — Nor 
had  knowledge^  did  not  come  to  consciousness. — This  has  more 
rest  than  the  other],  freedom  from  the  toil  and  worry  of  life.  Rest 
is  an  Oriental  ideal,  and  Qoheleth  in  this  expression  approaches 
the  Buddhistic  appreciation ,  of  Nirvana. — 6.  A  thousand  years 
twice  over],  twice  the  length  of  an  antedeluvian  patriarch's  life. — 
And  good  he  does  not  see],  misses  the  one  redeeming  feature  of 
mortal  existence,  which  in  g^*  Qoheleth  has  recognized  to  be  such. — 
Are  not  both  going  unto  the  same  place?].  Both  the  lifeless  foetus 
and  the  man  whose  life  has  been  long  but  wTetched,  are  destined 
to  Sheol,  and  the  Hfeless  foetus  is  to  be  congratulated  because  it 
reaches  the'  goal  by  a  shorter  and  less  agonizing  way. — 7.  The 
man],  here  the  long-lived  individual  referred  to  in  vs.  6. — Mouth 
and  appetite]  are  probably  used  symbolically.  One  toils  all  his 
life  for  a  satisfaction  which  he  never  attains. — 8.  What  advantage 
has  the  wise  man  over  the  fool?].  The  idea  that  the  lifeless  foetus 
has  an  advantage  over  a  prosperous  man  prompts  a  repetition  of 
the  thought  of  ch.  2^^^. — What,  the  poor  who  knows  how  to  walk 
before  the  living?].  This  evidently  means,  as  McN.  has  seen, 
"what  advantage  has  the  poor  man,  who  has  got  on  in  the  world 
by  knowing  how  to  walk  prudently  and  successfully,  before  his 
fellow-men  ?  "  This,  like  the  question  about  the  wise  and  fools,  is 
suggested  by  the  comparison  of  the  prosperous,  long-lived  man 
with  the  lifeless  foetus. — 9.  Better  is  the  sight  of  the  eyes].  The 
last  clause  shows  that  this  expression  means  "better  is  the  enjoy- 
ment of  what  one  has." — Wandering  of  desire],  desires  for  various 
unattainable  things. 

58  ").  Sieg.  and  Ha.  regard  this  verse  as  the  work  of  a  glossator— 
Sieg.,  of  Q\  his  Chasid  glossator.  Sieg.  misinterprets  the  text,  however, 
taking  nr;n  in  the  sense  of  (XKavdaXl^eaOai  in  Mt.  13",  emending  ipty 
to  ^^d],  and  following  Kn.,  Heil.,  Zo.,  BDB.  and  Ges.^-  (§i24h),  in 
taking  o-ria),  plural  majestatis,  referring  to  God.  It  is  better  with  Hit., 
Ew.,  Del,  Wr.,  Wild.,  Gins.,  PI.,  VI.  and  McN.  to  interpret  it  of  a 
hierarchy  of  officials,  as  we  have  done  above.  It  then  becomes  thor- 
oughly harmonious  with  Q.'s  point  of  view. — '.OD'^T'D  St>],  cf.  tOD'^D  S;i, 
Is.  lo*. — nj>n?;],  in  the  sense  of  "Province,"  occurs  frequently  in  the 


OPPRESSION,  DESPOTISM,  RICHES     [Ch.  5«-6«  131 

late  books,  Ezr.,  Neh.,  Est.,  Dn.,  La.,  and  Qoh.  Outside  of  these 
books,  only  in  i  K.  20'^  i^.  17. 19  and  Ez.  198. — nnnn]  on  non,  in  the  sense 
of  "look  with  astonishment,"  see  Is.  13*  29^  Je.  4^  Ps.  48^  Job  26". 
_;>3n=" business"  in  Is.  5813  and  Pr.  3113,  it  has  here  passed  from  that 
to  mean  "matter,"  or  "thing,"  BD5.,  as  in  the  Talmud,  cj.  Ja.  492b. — 
9  (8).  This  verse  has  been  a  crux  to  interpreters.  The  various  render- 
ings from  that  of  Dod.  to  that  of  Sieg.  are,  when  compared,  an  eloquent 
testimony  to  the  difficulty  of  the  verse. — r\-\\::'\  Dod.  emended  to  n;:', 
rendering,  "Superior  land,  whose  king  is  a  servant  of  the  Almighty." 
Ewald  and  Zo.  rendered,  "A  king  set  over  a  land";  Kn.,  Ges.,  Vaih., 
"A  king  who  is  served  by  the  land";  ©,  Ra.  and  AE.,  "A  king  who  is 
subject  to  the  land";  Del.,  Heng.,  Wr.,  "A  king  devoted  to  arable 
land,"  and  Wild.,  "King  of  a  kingdom  which  is  served."  McN.  and 
Ha.  have  correctly  rendered  substantially  as  it  is  rendered  above.  Ha. 
alone  seems  to  have  correctly  seen  that  ^^'^  is  epexegetical  of  j'lN.  McN. 
and  K6.  (§286d)  hold  that  they  cannot  refer  to  the  same  thing.  McN. 
correctly  observes,  however,  that  the  accents  show  that  13;?:  is  to  be 
construed  with  mc-  and  not  with  1^::.  The  article  in  Sz\  expresses 
totality,  cf.  On.  1612  2  S.  23^  i  Ch.  75  and  Ko.  §3oia.  (g  and  S  read 
fTTi  Traj/Ti.  Perhaps,  as  McN.  suggests,  the  scribe  thought  it  referred  to 
the  hierarchy  of  officials  in  vs.  8.— mr],  literally  "field,"  i.e.,  land  for 
pasturage  or  tillage.— -(2>'j].  This  Niphal  occurs  only  in  Dt.  21^  and 
Ez.  369-  34^  and  always  means  "till." 

10  (9).  r^D3  3nvs]  was  regarded  by  Zirkel  as  a  Graecism=0tXd/37iypos, 
a  view  which  McN.,  p.  41,  has  sufficiently  refuted.  See  above,  Intro- 
duction, §6  (i).  ^IDD  was  among  the  ancient  Semites  the  specific  word 
for  money. — 3  ijnx.  -a  occurs  with  jnx  only  here.  It  strengthens  the 
idea.  It  is  parallel  to  -3  r^n  in  Nu.  148  2  S.  1526,  etc.— >n]  is  used  in 
the  sense  "whoever,"  cf.  Ex.  24"  3226  Ju.  72  Is.  4410  Pr.  94-  is,  also 
Ko.  §382b. — pnn]  usually  means  "multitude,"  being  derived  from  a 
root,  "to  roar,"  or  "murmur."  Sometimes  it  has  as  here  the  meaning 
"wealth,"  cf.  Is.  60^  Ps.  37I6  i  Ch.  2918.  Dr.  thinks  the  original  reading 
may  have  been  r^D,  since  that  is  the  reading  of  ^  and  ©.  The  :3  be- 
fore pnn  he  regards  as  due  to  dittography. — ^3n  nj  dj]  Zap.  regards 
as  a  stereotyped  gloss,  while  Ha.  refers  the  whole  verse  to  a  glossator. 
—11  <»'').•  nuna]  affords  an  example  of  a  common  Sem.  method  of  denoting 
time  by  a  prep,  and  an  infinitive.  Cf.  the  As.  ina  kasad2sa="  when  she 
approached,"  IV,  R.,  31,  12;  KB.,  VI,  80,  and  also  cf  Ges-^-  §ii4e. 
— n^iJon]  is  another  way  of  referring  to  rmn  of  the  preceding  vs. — fn^^o], 
see  on  4^.  It  primarily  means  skill,  but  is  here  equivalent  to  jnnv 
— n>S;;a].  hy2  is  frequently  used  in  the  pi.  form  with  a  sing,  sense,  but 
always  before  a  suffix, -c/.,  e.g.,  Ex.  2129  Is.  i^  and  Ko.  §263k.— niN^]  is 
probably  to  be  read  with  Qr.,  though  Eur.  takes  the  opposite  view. 
Cf.  Dr.,  in  loco,  and  5DB.  p.  909.— 12  od.    -,p;;]  (g^  s,  9  and  K  read 


132  ECCLESIASTES 

i^>%  "slave."  MT.  is,  however,  supported  by  #,  B,  01,  and  is  probably 
right.  As  AE.  noted,  Gn.  42  and  Pr.  12"  make  it  probable  that  the  ex- 
pression is  shortened  from  nnix  "12;',  and  refers  to  an  agricultural  worker. 

— ON on],  usually  without    ),  mean    "either".  .  .  "or";  cf.    Ko. 

§37ir.  For  ';2t',  in  the  sense  of  "  satiety,"  cf.  Dt.  3323.  The  construction 
of  the  word  is  a  case  of  casus  pendens,  cf.  Da.  §106. — n-'jc],  Hiph.  part, 
of  niJ,  followed  by  ^y  and  meaning  "permit."  The  inf.  is  usually  used 
in  such  constructions,  see  Ko.  §289d. — P'i''''^],  from  |J>%  is  one  of  the 
rare  forms  of  the  inf.  made  after  the  analogy  of  the  strong  verb,  cf 
Ges.^-  §69n.— 13  (12).  n^m  n;;-i].  nSin  is  part,  of  r\'?n,  used  adjectively. 
It  means  "sore,"  or  "deep-seated"  (so  Del.,  Wr.  and  BDB.).  (S 
reads  d/)/ow(T-T/a="  sickness,"  in  which  it  is  followed  by  ^,  which  leads 
McN.  to  conjecture  that  the  pre-Aqiban  reading  was  ''^n  pi  C'\  "there 
is  an  evil  sickness."  Iff  and  ®  support  MT.,  however,  and  its  reading 
is  so  much  more  intelligible  that  it  can  but  be  regarded  as  the  original. 
Then,  as  Kn.  long  ago  observed,  in  Qo.  the  adj.  regularly  follows  the 
noun.  The  Niph.  of  nSn  has  a  similar  meaning,  cf  Je.  14"  Na.  3''. 
For  the  use  of  the  passive  followed  by  S  to  express  agency,  see  Gn.  1419 
and  Ko.  §104. — "f'^i'^j  see  on  vs.  12.  Ha.,  on  account  of  his  metrical 
theory,  erases  trbt:'.-!  nnn  and  in;7"^S  as  glosses. — 14  <i3).  n;;i  i^jv],  most 
interpreters  agree  that  the  phrase  means  "a  bad  business,"  or  "venture." 
— ^y;]  see  on  ii3. — ^-\>2].  Interpreters,  differ  as  to  whether  the  suffix  i~ 
refers  to  the  father  or  the  son.  Kn.,  Gins.,  Heil.  and  PI.  hold  that  it 
refers  to  the  former,  while  Gr.,  VI.,  No.  and  Sieg.  refer  it  to  the  latter. 
Wild,  rightly  remarks  that  it  may  refer  to  either.  Ha.,  for  his  usual 
reason,  regards  Ninn  -\V';n  and  ndind  as  glosses. — 15  <">.  is'Nd]  is  fre- 
quently used  in  comparisons,  cf  Ges.^-  §i6ib  and  Ko.  §388h. — 
noSS  3itt'^]="go  again."  On  account  of  its  poverty  in  adverbs,  3vi> 
is  often  used  to  express  an  adverbial  idea,  cf  Ges.^-  §i2od. — nc'^], 
literally  "take  up,"  "carry,"  is  here  used  in  the  sense  of  "receive,"  as 
in  Dt.  333  I  K.  523  Ps.  245. — iSo;;^],  the  3  expresses  instrumentality. — 
"nb'!^  was  read  by  01  and  S  "i^^tr.  Ko.  (§i94b)  regards  "nS>  here  as  prob- 
ably a  Kal,  but  it  is  better  to  regard  it  as  a  Hiph.  Jussive.  Wr.  notes 
that  it  is  one  of  the  few  Jussives  in  the  book.  Other  instances  he  be- 
lieves occur  in  lo^o  (iir)  and  12^  (^V)- — 16  ^^^K  n^in  ny-i],  on  this, 
see  on  513  (12),  -i^v  nny-SD]  is  variously  regarded  by  different  scholars. 
Geiger,  who  is  followed  by  Wild.,  McN.,  and  Ges.^u  ,  regarded  it  as  a 
compound  of  3,  ^,  and  nD>',  comparing  i  Ch.  258,  Ko.  (§§2771,  339r 
and  37 in)  seems  to  favor  this  view.  On  the  other  hand,  Del.,  who  is 
followed  by  Wr.,  Sieg.  and  BDB.,  regards  the  expression  as  an  imitation 
of  the  Aram.  —\  I3p  So  (Dan.  2^"),  and  accordingly  as  an  Aramaism. 
This  view  is  correct. — ]^'^ri''1  ^  read  njnn"'  =  7repi(r(j-e/a  dvrov. — 17  '•^^K  The 
MT.  of  the  verse  is  obviously  corrupt;  a  translation  of  the  present  text 
is  impossible.     Many  attempts  have  been   made  to  explain  Sdn"«  T^n^]. 


OPPRESSION,  DESPOTISM,  RICHES    [Ch.5^9  1 33 

Some,  as  Del.,  taking  it  literally;  others,  as  Wr.,  taking  it  figuratively 
like  IJ'^''  in  Mi.  7*.  (g,  however,  reads  Kal  ev  7r^i'0ei=:  Sixi,  the  preposi- 
tion being  carried  over  from  •\Z'r\:i.  This  is  the  best  solution  of  the 
diflEiculty,  and  with  Gr.,  Kn.,  Sieg.,  McN.,  and  Ha.  we  adopt  it. — Dips] 
is  to  be  corrected  to  D^;?,  and  taken  as  a  noun  with  No.,  Eur.,  Sieg., 
McN.  and  Ha.  The  i  of  vSn  is  untranslatable.  It  should  be  omitted 
as  an  error  (c/.  6^),  (so  Kn.,  Gr.,  No.,  Eur.,  Wild.,  Sieg.  and  McN.), 
which,  as  Kn.  and  McN.  have  observed,  arose  by  an  accidental  doubling 
of  the  following  1.  We  thus  obtain  a  verse  which  by  supplying  a  copula 
at  the  beginning  contains  a  series  of  nouns  all  governed  by  3  in  "iit'nD. 
Ha.  regards  n^pi  i"''?n  as  a  gloss  to  the  rest  of  the  vs.  because  it  spoils 
the  metre.     He  unnecessarily  denies  the  whole  vs.  to  Q'. 

18  (i^>.  This  verse  contains  no  Athnah.  As  Del.  notes,  it  is  to  be 
compared  in  that  respect  with  Gn.  21  ^  Nu.  91  Is.  361  Je.  1313  5137  Ez.  421" 
Am.  51  I  Ch.  2626  281  2  Ch.  231.  The  phrase  no-*  t:"x  3Vi3  is  difficult. 
In  interpreting  it,  the  Massoretic  accents  must  be  disregarded,  Gr., 
PI.,  Wild,  and  Sieg.  regard  this  as  a  translation  of  the  Greek  koXov 
Kdyaddv.  That,  however,  would  be  nci  31:0.  Del.,  who  is  followed 
by  Wr.,  McN.  and  Ko.  (§§4i4m,  383a),  noted  that  the  one  parallel  is  in 
Ho.  i2»,  N'jn'M^N  |;v='* iniquity  which  is  sin."  As  there  can  be  no 
suspicion  of  Greek  influence  in  Hosea,  the  phrase  is  not  a  Graecism. 
— nsDo]  is  ace.  of  time,  cf.  Ko.  §33 la.  vn  is  an  accidental  misspelling 
of  V"in.  Cf.  Dr.,  ad  loc.  Sieg.  holds  that  the  vs.  is  the  work  of  the 
Epicurean  glossator.  Ha.  also  regards  it  as  the  work  of  a  secondary 
hand,  but  as  we  have  interpreted  it,  it  belongs  naturally  in  the  sequence 
of  the  thought. — 19  ^^^\  D^^^"l  ^3].  <^  ttcLs  &pdpu}Tros=D'M<  So.  The  pre- 
Aqiban  reading  apparently  lacked  the  article. — d^d^j]  is  an  As.  or 
Aram,  loan  word,  cf.  As.  nikasu,  "possessions,"  "treasure,"  Syr.  nekse. 
It  occurs  in  Heb.  only  in  late  works  (Jos.  22^  (P>  2  Ch.  i"-  12  and  Qoh. 
62),  though  common  in  Aram.,  see  e.g.,  Ezr.  68  726. — tD>St:^-l]="to  em- 
power," has  an  Aramaic  coloring,  cf.  Dn.  2^^-  *^.  The  only  Heb.  passage 
in  which  the  meaning  approximates  is  Ps.  119133. — xin]  is  a  good  ex- 
ample of  the  copula,  cf.  Ges.^-  §i4ih.  Sieg.  and  Ha.  regard  the  verse 
as  the  work  of  the  later  hand.  There  is  little  convincing  reason  for  this. 
The  only  ground  would  be  that  it  might  be  regarded  as  a  doublette  of 
the  preceding  verse,  but  that  is  not  in  this  case  convincing. — 20  (»9).  nj>T] 
has  caused  interpreters  much  difficulty,  and  Dr.  would  emend  to  n^y. 
The  root.njv  may  be  (i)  ^r>\  "occupy"  (Ar.  'ana,  Syr.  '^na),  or  (2) 
njy,  "answer."  E  v.,  Del.,  No.,  Wr.,  and  McN.  take  it  from  the 
latter  root,  Dejong,  Sieg.,  Wild,  and  Ha.  {cf  JBL.,  XIX,  71)  from  the 
former.  McN.  notes  that  the  reading  of  CS  irepiarird  avT6v=^ny;■o, 
which  was  the  pre-Aqiban  reading,  but  fails  to  see  that  this  supplies  the 
desired  object  of  the  verb,  so  that  if  we  Uke  the  verb  irom  ny;  (r)  as 
.<$  and  H  both  do,  we  need  to  make  no  further  change  in  the  text  and 


134  ECCLESIASTES 

obtain  the  most  satisfactory  sense.  In  that  case  njj?  is  probably  an 
Aram,  loan  word  (BD5.).  Ha.,  in  JBL.,  XIX,  71,  proposed  to  amend 
in  accord  with  U  to  nS  nnrtto,  so  that  JS  could  be  the  object,  but  CS 
is  a  much  older  authority,  its  reading  is  simpler  and  gives  the  better 
sense.  It  is  also  supported  by  ^  and  A.  If  vs.  17  is  genuine,  as  I  be- 
lieve, it  carries  with  it  this  vs.  Ha.  and  Sieg.  wrongly  make  this  a  gloss. 
61.  B'^]  is  several  times  used  by  Q.  (4^  5'^  8'^  and  lo^)  to  introduce  a 
new  topic  or  example,  but  not  always  so  used;  c/.  8«,  and  perhaps  2^K 

Dr.  notes  that  20  MSS.  add  after  nyn],  n'rin,  as  in  512.    -'?v n:ji]= 

"be  great,"  i.e.,  "heavy  upon";    cf.  its  use  in   8^. — 2.    C'Ddj],  see  on 
519  (18). — ijjin].    The  suffix  is  pleonastic  as  in  Gn.  3033. — ->pn]  may  in  form 
be  either  as  a  vb.  or  an  adj.     Del.  takes  it  here  rightly  as  an  adj.  and 
compares  i   S.  211^   i   K.   11"  Pr.    12'. — p  is  partitive  after  ">Dn,   cf. 
Gn.  62  and  Ko.  §81.— itysj]  "himself,"  cf.  2^'  BD5.— noj]  ordinarily 
"foreigner,"  but  as  Gins.,  Wr.,  VI.  and  Sieg.,  it  here  signifies  one  of  an- 
other family — not  a  regular  heir. — y\  >'?n]=  "  evil  disease,"  is  peculiar.    If 
the  reading  is  genuine,  Q.  must  have  varied  the  text  from  S'^  purposely, 
perhaps  because  he  regarded  the  thing  in  his  mind  as  an  incurable  dis- 
ease in  human  affairs  (cf.  i  Ch.  2ii2ff,  which  may  have  been  in  his  mind). 
Ha.,  for  metrical  reasons,   regards  D-'nVNn]  in  both  its  occurrences  in 
this  vs.  as  glosses;   also  Nin  yn  ■•Sm  Sijn  ni. — 3.  dn]=  "although,"  cf.  Is. 
I's. — HNc]  carries  with  it  after  i>Sr  the  idea  of  an,  cf.  i  S.  2^.     <S,  ^ 
and  A  support  MT.  in    its  reading,  while  H,  ul   and  2C   supply  0''}2. 
Hit.  follows  the  latter,  but  most  recent  interpreters  take  it  as  above. 
— nm  0'j;y],  as  Del.  observes,  is  interchangeable   with   ^2'\n  0"'JtJ';   cf. 
118  and  Ne.  g^°.     ~^]  seems,  as  Wr.  noted,  pleonastic,  but  Ko.  (1387k) 
regards  it  as  an  iterative  of  on.     Dr.  thinks  the  original  reading  may 
have  been  vn>  ooi.      One  is  tempted  with  Ha.   to  regard  vn^^  :3-\i 
Vjtt^^Di   as  a  gloss,   it  seems  such  a  repetition,  but  as  McN.  observes, 
it  may  have  been  inserted  by  Q.  for  emphasis.     In  late  Heb.  this  would 
not  be  strange. — VTc],  with  tp,  cf.  Is.  66". — nS  nn^n  nh  -\^2p  2Ji].    Ha. 
regards  it  as  a  gloss.     By  eliminating  this  and  the  gloss  mentioned 
above,  he  makes  poetry  of  it.     Del.  and  PI.  think  that  the  vs.  refers  in 
part  to  Artaxerxes  Memnon,  who  had,  according  to  Justin  (X,  i),  115 
sons  by  various  concubines,  besides  three  begotten  in  lawful  marriage, 
and  in  part  to  Artaxerxes  Ochus,  who  had  no  burial,  his  body  being 
thrown  to  the  cats.     Possibly  some  such  tales  floating  through  the  cen- 
turies, influenced  Q.'s  expression.     Gr.  takes  the  last  clause  to  refer  to 
Hyrcanus  II  (cf.  Jos.  Ant.  xv,  6^),  but  this  is  an  idle  fancy. — 4.  icr],  DC' 
is  frequently= -\0T,  cf  Dt.  9'^  i  S.  2421  2  S.  14^  Ps.  721^. — 5.  irctt']  else- 
where in  Qoh.  has  the  article,  but  is  frequently  used  in  BH.  without  it, 
cf.  Je.  3i3s  4313  Ez.  32^  Jo.  21"  415,  etc. — n.s-»  e»ca']=-iiN  hn-i    of   Job 
3I6, — y-\'>]  is  construed  by  several  interpreters  like  nN-\,  as  governing  C'Ca', 
S  makes  it  govern  nnj,  but  Wild,  is  right  in  taking  it  in  the  sense  of  the 


OPPRESSION,  DESPOTISM,  RICHES     [Ch.  S^-G'  135 

Lat.  sapere=" to  have  knowledge"  or  "discernment,"  cf.  Is.  44'  45^° 
56'"  Ps.  7322  82*  and  Job  132. — rni],  a  segholate  noun  from  mj,  is  held  by 
some  to  be  used  here  as  in  the  sense  of  "  better,"  as  it  is  in  two  passages 
in  the  Talmud  (cf.  J  a.  886b),  but  as  McN.  observes  it  must  have  the 

same  meaning  as  in  Job  3'^  as  well  as  Qoh.  4^  and  9'^ — n; ^^,  cf.  ch. 

3i9andKo.  §48. — hid].  This  use  of  p  is  very  common,  c/.  i  S.  24"  Ps.  52^ 
Hb.  2'6. — 6.  i^x  (=iS  tx=i'?  ra)  is  an  Aramaism  {cf.  Ja.  48b).  It 
occurs  elsewhere  in  BH.  only  in  Est.  7^.  Cf.  x^  dn,  Ez.  3^  and  Ko. 
§39oy. — D"'Dj;2],  the  dual="two  times,"  is  usually  understood  to  double 
the  preceding  numeral,  but  in  Is.  30^6  we  have  the  analogous  expression, 
C'.r'J-^?'^'}  which  01  explains  as  equal  to  343,  i.e.,  7X7X7-  Ha.,  who 
strangely  assigns  the  verse  to  a  glossator,  rejects — N^]  after  n^vj  as 
a  still  later  gloss,  but  he  misses  the  point  of  Qoheleth's  thought.  It  is 
only  the  man  who  has  had  no  enjoyment  in  life,  whose  lot  is  worse  than 
that  of  a  lifeless  foetus.  There  is  a  limit  to  Q.'s  pessimism. — n^ic] 
refers  to  the  enjoyment  of  life,  cf.  $"■  Di|""2=  Sins:',  cf.  910  and  iis. 
— '7Dn]="both,"  see  on  2'^. — 7.  McN.  and  Ha.  regard  this  verse  as  a  gloss, 
but  it  can  so  easily  be  interpreted  to  fit  admirably  into  the  context,  that 
I  think  we  should  so  interpret  it.  It  is  true  the  poetical  form  of  the 
saying  suggests  a  proverb,  but  it  is  a  proverb  so  appropriate  that  it  may 
well  be  introduced  by  Q.  himself. — Din.i].  The  article  is  by  most  inter- 
preters taken  to  be  the  generic  art.,  but  Gins,  is  right  in  regarding  it  as 
the  art.  which  refers  to  a  subject  recently  introduced  (Da.  §21  (a)). 
Here  it  refers  to  the  man  mentioned  in  vvs.  3  and  6,  the  nVdh  nS  ti^D:r\] 
corresponding  to  yairn  ah  ^^Dl  of  vs.  3. — inisS],  'not  to  be  taken  with 
Zo.  and  No.  in  contrast  with  ^D2,  nor,  as  some  have  thought,=  "  accord- 
ing to  his  measure,"  or  "proportion"  (cf.  Ex.  12^  Gn.  471^),  but  in  its 
ordinary  meaning.  It  is  used  to  represent  all  the  consumptive  desires 
of  an  individual.  The  reading  of  B,  TJ  and  ?C — inis3 — is  a  corruption. 
— 0J1]  is  concessive,  cf.  Ko.  §373n. — 2^0:]=  "appetite,"  cf.  Is.  5»< 
298  Pr.  i626,  also  Hullin,  4^.  In  this  latter  passage  ns^n  t^?^="good 
appetite,"  see  BDB. — 8.  Sieg.  assigns  this  verse  to  his  Hokma  glos- 
sator, and  Ha.  breaks  it  up  into  two  glosses,  but  both  seem  to  lack  suffi- 
cient warrant.  It  fits  well  into  the  development  of  Qoheleth's  theme. 
Gins.,  whom  Dr.  follows,  would  supply  ]p  before  yiv]  from  the  first 
clause,  and  make  the  meaning,  "what  advantage  has  the  poor  man  over 
one  who  knows,"  etc.  Del.,  Wr.  and  McN.,  however,  take  Jjnv  as 
an  attributive  without  the  art.  Del.  compares  Ps.  143^°  (n^ita  nnn), 
but  as  Br.  points  out  (Psalms,  ad  loc),  the  words  are  taken  from  Neh. 
920,  where  nji^a  has  the  art.  It  is  easier  to  disregard  the  pointing  of 
MT.  and  suppose  that  ''JvS]  is  without  the  art.,  then  ynv  can  be  attribu- 
tive without  the  art.  also  {cf.  Ko.  §41  ic). — ^^^^],  for  the  strong  inf. 
instead  of  pdSS,  cf.  Ex.3»9  Nu.  22i3-  »  Job  342^. — D^>n]  isnot="life"  (Kn., 
Hit.,  Wild.),  but  "living"  (so  Gins.,  Del.,  Wr.,  McN.,  Ha.).— 9.  Schol- 


136  ECGLESIASTES 

ars  differ  as  to  the  genuineness  of  this  vs.  Ha.  regards  it  as  Q.'s,  except 
the  words — San  n?  dj].  Sieg.  attributes  the  couplet  to  Q^ — his  Hokma 
glossator — and  the  last  clause  to  his  R'.  McN.  assigns  it  to  his  pro- 
verbial glossator — the  part  which  Sieg.  attributes  to  Q^,  but  regards 
the  last  clause  as  genuine.  As  in  the  case  of  vs.  7,  if  vs.  9a  is  a  proverb, 
why  may  not  Q.  have  introduced  it  himself? — 'y  nxnc]  has  been  com- 
pared by  many  scholars  to  Ps.  3521  Gn.  3«,  etc.,  but  the  comparisons  are 
really  inapt. — ^^TiNnc]  is  here  used  to  denote  the  power  of  seeing  and  en- 
joying a  meaning  which  is  found  in  late  Heb.  only  (cf.  BDB.  909b). 
It  occurs  again  in  ch,  ii^  and  in  Yoma,  74b  (cf.  Ja.  834b)  in  this  sense. 
— l^n],  again  the  strong  forni  of  the  inf.  as  in  the  preceding  vs. — B'*DJ  iSn] 
=  "  wandering  of  desire."  Compare  pefipaa/jtas  iin6vixLas=^"  roving  of 
desire,"  in  Wisd.  4^2. — San  n?  dj],  etc.  is,  if  the  first  part  of  the  vs. 
be  assigned  to  a  glossator,  said  of  vs.  8.  If,  however,  the  first  part  of  the 
vs.  Q.  inserted  himself,  it  applies  to  the  roaming  of  desire. 

610-12      Puny  man  against  Fate. 

1".  That  which  is,  its  name  has  already  been  called,  and  it  has  been 
known  what  man  is,  and  he  will  not  be  able  to  contend  with  Him  who 
is  stronger  than  he.  ".  For  there  are  many  words  which  increase  vanity. 
What  advantage  has  rnan  ?  ^^.  For  who  knows  w^hat  is  good  for  man  in 
life,  the  number  of  the  days  of  his  vain  life,  for  he  spends  them  like  a 
shadow:  for  who  shall  tell  man  what  shall  be  after  him  under  the  sun? 

G'".  Its  name  has  already  been  called].  It  has  already  existed. 
The  phrase  is  perhaps  influenced  by  the  Babylonian,  in  which 
"to  name  a  name"  is  equivalent  to  saying  that  the  thing  named 
exists.  When,  at  the  opening  of  the  Babylonian  Creation 
epic,  the  poet  wishes  to  refer  to  a  time  before  the  existence 
of  the  heavens  and  the  earth,  he  says  (see  King's  Seven  Tablets 
of  Creation^  Ij  i)- 

When  in  the  height  heaven  was  not  named, 
And  the  earth  beneath  did  not  yet  bear  a  name. 

Cf.  also  Is.  4026. — //  has  been  known]^  i.e.,  foreknown,  and  so 
foreordained. — He  ivill  not  be  able  to  contend  with  Him],  with  his 
Creator,  who  ordained  his  fate.  The  thought  of  the  vs.  is  similar 
to  that  of  Is.  459  461"  and  Rom.  920. — 11.  Manywords  which  in- 
crease vanity'].  As  Del.  saw,  this  refers  to  the  ''contention "  spoken 
of  in  vs.  10.  Delitzsch  and  Wright  held  that  the  verse  contained 
a  reference  to  the  disputes  between  the  Pharisees,  Sadducees  and 


PUNY  MAN   AGAINST  FATE     [Ch.  6">->2  137 

Essenes,  as  to  how  far  fate  controls  the  actions  of  men,  the  Phari- 
sees contending  that  it  controls  some  of  jtheir  actions,  the  Sadducees 
that  it  controls  none  of  them,  and  the  Essenes  that  it  controls  all 
(see  Jos.  Ant.  xiii,  5^;  xviii,  i^-  "  and  BJ.  ii,  S^*).  To  what  ex- 
tent these  disputes  were  carried  on  as  early  as  the  time  of  Qoheleth, 
however,  we  do  not  know.  We  cannot  clearly  trace  the  sects 
mentioned  in  his  time.  Qoheleth  maintains  that  man  is  so  power- 
less against  his  Creator  that  discussion  of  the  matter  is  futile. 
— What  advantage  has  man],  in  his  powerless  position. — 12. 
Who  knows  what  is  good  for  man\.  The  positive  question  is  a 
negative  assertion.  No  one  knows  what  is  really  good,  for  power, 
possessions,  sensual  enjoyment,  and  wisdom  have  been  shown  to 
be  vanity. — The  number  of  the  days  of  his  vain  life].  This  reminds 
the  reader  of  -the  verdict  on  life  which  Qoheleth  has  repeatedly 
reached. — Like  a  shadow].  The  thought  that  human  Ufe  is  as 
unsubstantial  as  a  shadow  finds  expression  several  times  in  the 
OT.,  as  I  Ch.  29>5  Job  8^  Ps.  10211  and  144^.  PI.  cites  an 
expression  of  the  same  sentiment  from  Sophocles: 

In  this  I  see  that  we,  all  we  that  live, 

Are  but  vain  shadows,  unsubstantial  dreams. 

{Ajax,  127  ff.) 

The  thought  expressed  by  Qoheleth  is  rather  that  human  life  flits 
like  a  shadow.  It  ,is  more  nearly  akin  to  ch.  8'^  job  142  Ps. 
10923. — What  shall  he  after  him].  The  uncertainty  of  the  future 
creates  a  part  of  the  difficulty  of  telling  what  is  good  for  man. 

6'".  ntt>N],  i.e.,  what  sort  of  creature  man  is,  cf.  Ex.  1413,  Perhaps,  as 
Ty.  thought,  the  words  were  shaped  by  a  reminiscence  of  Gn.  6^,  Nin  dtwO 
lira. — Dy  r"''^]>  used  in  the  sense  of  :i''"^,  occurs  only  here  {cf.  BD5. 
192b),  though  |nj="be  at  strife,"  occurs  in  2  S.  19'°.  The  nearest 
parallel  is  in  Gn.  6',  though  there  probably  the  original  reading  did  not 
contain  pT"  {cf.  BDB.  192b).  Ty.  thought  this  text  an  allusion  to 
Gn.  If  that  had  been  corrupted  into  its  present  form  by  the  time  Q. 
wrote,  perhaps  Ty.  was  right. — 'T'pnntt'],  Qr.  tr^pntt'  is  probably,  as 
Dr.  conjectures  (in  Kit.'s  BH.),  a  corruption  of  ^'\>n  Nin-^",  cf.  Vd;?  Nin^': 
ch.  2^2.  Some  have  taken  the  Kt.  as  a  Hiph.,  but  that  is  not  so  probable, 
as  elsewhere  its  Hiph.  does  not  occur  in  Heb. — T'iPC]  is  an  Aramaism, 
cf.  Dn.  2^0-  ''2  333  and  the  cognate  Syr. — 11.  on^n]  was  taken  by  Kn. 
and  Gins,  as  "things,"  as  ©  takes  it,  but  (S,  §,  11  and  A,  which  render  it 


138  ECCLESIASTES 

"words,"  are  rightly  followed  by  most  recent  interpreters.  On  n^nn], 
cf.  Ko.  §3i8e.  H  adds  after  the  words  of  MT.  in  this  vs.  majora 
se  querere  {=f\;>t\  t>pf?_}  Cf.  Est.  929).  Zap.  (Kohelei,  p.  14)  thinks 
that  the  metre  makes  it  necessary  to  adopt  an  equivalent  for  these  words 
of  TJ,  to  fill  out  the  line.  The  words  are  an  ancient  gloss  supplied  to 
relieve  a  supposed  abruptness  in  the  sentence,  but  their  absence  from 
all  other  versions  attests  that  they  were  a  late  addition  to  the  text. 
— 12.  •\sDrj],  an  ace.  of  time,  cf.  K6.  §33 la,  also  ch.  5". — iSan  iin],  an 
attrib.  gen.,  cf.  Da.  §24  (c). — Dii'>"'i];  nt'>',  in  the  sense  of  "spend  time," 
is  without  parallel  in  BH.,  but  occurs  in  Midrash  Tillim  {cf.  Ja.  1125a). 
(&,  in  Pr.  1323,  shows  that  the  LXX  had  before  them  some  such  reading 
there,  while  Trotiytraj'Tes  5e  xP^''*"'  (Acts  15^^  iS^^)  and  iron^ao/xev  iKei 
iviavrbv  (Jas.  4'')  preserve  the  same  idiom  (cf.  also  Acts  20'  2  Cor. 
1 1^5  Tob.  10^  Jos.  Ant.  vi,  i'').  The  idiom  is  found  in  both  Greek  and 
Latin,  and  is  claimed  by  Zirkel  and  Gr.  as  a  Graecism.  McN.  would 
avoid  this  conclusion  by  making  ^'^D  complete  the  meaning  of  the  verb, 
thus,  "  seeing  that  he  makes  them  like  a  shadow."  It  seems  more  natural 
to  take  the  words  as  a  Graecism.  Such  an  idiom  may  have  been  bor- 
rowed after  a  few  years  of  Macedonian  rule,  even  if  Q.  was  not  influ- 
enced by  Greek  philosophy. — n!CN]=" because";  does  not  differ  from 
'>D  when  ^c  follows,  cf.  Dt.  32^.  It  is  causal  in  Q.,  also  in  ch.  4^  8"  and 
iQi^  cf  Ko.  §389a.  Sieg.  makes  the  verse  a  gloss,  Ha.  four  separate 
glosses,  but  I  see  no  reason  for  so  doing. 

71-". — A  Variety  of  Proverbs. 

1.  A  good  name  is  better  than  good  ointment, 
And  the  death-day,  than  the  birth-day. 

2.  It  is  better  to  go  to  the  house  of  mourning 
Than  to  the  house  of  feasting, 

For  that  is  the  end  of  every  man, 
And  the  living  will  lay  it  to  heart. 

3.  Better  is  grief  than  laughter. 

For  through  sadness  of  countenance  it  is  well  with  the  heart. 

4.  The  hearts  of  wise  men  are  in  the  house  of  mourning, 
But  the  hearts  of  fools,  in  the  house  of  mirth. 

8,  It  is  better  to  hear  the  rebuke  of  a  wise  man 
Than  for  a  man  to  list  to  songs  of  fools. 

6.  As  the  crackling  of  nettles  under  kettles. 
So  is  the  laughter  of  fools. 

[This  also  is  vanity."] 

7.  For  oppression  makes  mad  a  wise  man. 
And  a  bribe  corrupts  the  heart. 

8.  Better  is  the  end  of  a  thing  than  its  beginning; 
Better  is  patience  than  pride. 

9.  Do  not  hasten  in  thy  spirit  to  be  angry, 
For  anger  lodges  in  the  bosom  of  fools. 


VARIETY  OF  PROVERBS     [Ch.  7''^  1 39 

".  Do  not  say:  "Why  is  it  that  the  former  days  were  better  than 
these?"     For  thou  dost  not  ask  in  wisdom  concerning  this. 

11.  Wisdom  is  good  with  an  inheritance. 

And  an  advantage  to  those  who  behold  the  sun. 

12,  For  the  protection  of  wisdom  is  as  the  protectioti  of  money. 

And  the  advantage  of  knowledge  is,  wisdom  makes  its  possessor  to  live. 
15.   Consider  the  work  of  God  ; 
For  who  is  able  to  straighten 
What  he  has  made  crooked  ? 

".  In  the  day  of  prosperity  be  joyful,  and  in  the  day  of  adversity 
consider;  even  this  God  has  made  to  correspond  to  that  in  order  that 
man  should  not  find  anything  (that  is  to  be)  after  him. 

7^  A  good  name  is  better  than  good  ointment].  This  is  a  pro- 
verbial phrase  which  has  no  relation  to  the  context.  Sieg.  and 
McN.  believe  it  to  have  been  added  by  a  glossator.  This  may  be 
right,  but  it  is  difficult  to  divine  what  motive  can  have  induced  a 
glossator  to  add  it.  Ointment  is,  in  hot  climates,  highly  valued, 
cf.  2  S.  1220  Am.  6«  Ps.  45^  Pr.  7'^  Ru.  y  Dn.  lo'.  In  Ct.  i^  it 
is  a  simile  for  a  good  reputation.  The  thought  of  this  line,  how- 
ever, is  "honor  is  better  than  vanity." — The  death  day].  This  has 
the  true  ring  of  Qoheleth,  cf.  6^«. — 2.  House  of  mourning].  The 
mourning  at  a  death  lasted  seven  days,  see  Gn.  501"  BS.  22^2^  those 
who  sat  round  about  sought  to  comfort  the  mourners,  see  Je.  16^ 
Jn.  1 1 13-  31. — The  living  will  lay  it  to  heart].  The  thought  is  sim- 
ilar to  Ps.  90' 2. — 3.  Better  grief  than  laughter],  i.e.,  sorrow  than 
wanton  mirth. — //  is  well  with  the  heart].  The  idea  is  similar  to 
the  Greek  proverb,  ''to  suffer  is  to  learn."  A  similar  thought  is 
expressed  in  Job  Zo'"'^^-  The  thought  is,  however,  foreign  to 
Qoheleth,  who  never  seems  to  grasp  a  moral  purpose  in  suffering. 
The  verse  as  Ha.  has  seen  is  a  proverb  added  by  a  glossator. 
— 4.  House  of  inoiirning  .  .  .  house  of  mirth].  The  vs.  reverts  to  and 
enforces  the  thought  of  vsT2.  McN.  and  Ha.  are  wrong  in  regard- 
ing it  a  gloss.  Its  thought  is  "hke  attracts  like." — 5.  Hear  the 
rebuke],  cf.  Pr.  131-  »,  from  which  the  expression  is  borrowed. — 
Songs  of  fools],  probably  mirthful  drinking  songs,  such  as  are 
mentioned  in  Am.  6^  This  proverb  is  probably  also  a  gloss.  Its 
thought  is  out  of  harmony  with  Qoheleth,  as  Sieg.,  McN.  and  Ha. 
have  perceived. — 6.  This  vs.,  like  several  which  follow,  is  a  proverb 


I40  ECCLESIASTES 

added  by  a  glossator. — The  crackling  of  nettles].  There  is  a  word- 
play in  the  original,  which  our  English  rendering  imitates.-  In  the 
original,  however,  the  word  rendered  nettles  means  "thorns."  In 
the  East  charcoal  was  commonly  used  for  fires  {cf.  Ps.  iS^  120* 
Is.  47'^  Jn.  i8'»),  as  it  is  to-day.  It  burns  slowly  in  a  brasier 
{cf.  Je.  36"  23) ^  and  gives  out  considerable  heat.  Thorns  (Ps. 
58^),  or  even'  stubble  (Is.  47 ^0>  might  be  burned  by  the  hasty,  but 
the  result  was  noise,  not  heat. — The  laughter  of  fools]  is  alike 
noisy,  but  valueless. — This  also  is  vanity].  This  clause  spoils  the 
symmetry  of  a  poetic  couplet,  and  as  Sieg.,McN.  and  Haupt  agree, 
is  a  still  later  gloss. — 7.  For  oppression  makes  mad  a  wise  man]. 
This  clause  has  no  connection  with  the  preceding.  Del.  supposed 
that  two  lines  had  fallen  out,  and  proposed  to  supply  them  from 
Pr.  16  ^  As  Sieg.,  McN.  and  Ha.  have  noted,  the  vs.  is  a  gloss, 
introduced  by  the  hand  which  inserted  so  many  of  these  proverbs; 
it  is  vain,  therefore,  to  seek  for  connection  of  thought,  or  to  sup- 
pose that  another  couplet  is  necessary. — A  bribe  corrupts  the 
heart].  This  is  an  echo  of  Ex.  23 »  and  Dt.  i6»3.  Heart  in  Heb. 
includes  "understanding"  (Ho.  41'),  and  the  moral  nature  also. 
In  Hebrew  thought,  wisdom  and  goodness  go  together,  and  folly 
and  wickedness. — 8.  Better  is  the  end  of  a  thing].  This  is  a  proverb 
quite  in  Qoheleth's  mood.  Sieg.  and  McN.  regard  it  as  a  gloss, 
but  Haupt  is  right  in  seeing  in  it  Q.'s  hand.  It  is  too  pessimistic 
to  be  true  without  qualifications,  as  Pr.  5^  23^2  show. — Better  is 
patience  than  pride].  This  last  has  no  connection  w^th  Q.'s 
theme,  but  it  belonged  to  the  proverb  which  he  quoted,  so  he  in- 
troduced it.  Its  presence  led  a  glossator  to  add  the  next  verse. — 
9.  Do  not  hasten  .  .  .  to  be  angry].  This  is  a  proverb  out  of  har- 
mony with  Q.'s  thought,  it  was  introduced  because  of  the  suggestion 
of  vs.  8b. — Anger  lodges  in  the  bosom  of  fools]:  a  sentiment  set  forth 
in  Pr.  i2i«  and  Job  52. 

10.  Why  is  it  that  the  former  days  were  better?].  This  is 
always  the  plaint  of  an  old  man.  Sieg.  and  McN.  regard  this 
also  as  a  gloss,  but  it  is  not  in  the  form  of  a  proverb,  and  is  in 
thorough  harmony  with  Qoheleth's  thought,  see  ch.  i^  i". — 11.  Wis- 
dom is  good  with  an  inheritance].  Compare  the  saying  in  Aboth, 
22, "Beautiful  is  knowledge  of  the  law  with  a  secular  occupation"; 


VARIETY  OF  PROVERBS     [Ch.  7' i<  141 

also  I  Tim.  6«.  It  does  not  imply  that  wisdom  without  an  in- 
heritance is  of  no  value,  but  that  with  an  inheritance  it  makes  an 
especially  happy  combination.  The  vs.  is,  as  Gr.,  Sieg.,  McN. 
and  Ha.  have  seen,  a  proverbial  gloss. — Those  who  behold  the  siin\ 
the  living,  cf.  Ps.  58 «. — 12.  For  the  protection  of  wisdom  is  as 
the  protection  of  money\  Money  ransoms' a  life  (Pr.  13^),  while 
wisdom  may  deliver  a  city  (Ec.  9^5).  The  verse  is  a  gloss  by  the 
same  hand  as  the  last,  and  gives  a  reason  for  it. — 13.  Consider  the 
work  of  God].  Qoheleth  has  not  given  up  belief  in  God,  though  he 
is  a  pessimist.  This  vs.  followed  vs.  10.  Vvs.  11  and  12  have  been 
interpolated.- — Who  is  able  to  straighten  what  He  has  made  crooked?]. 
This  is  an  iteration  in  other  words  of  the  thought  of  i^*.  Sieg. 
and  Ha.  unnecessarily  regard  it  as  a  gloss.  It  is  certainly  Qohe- 
leth's  thought,  and  he  could  as  easily  repeat  himself  as  a  modern 
writer, — 14.  This  God  has  made  to  correspond  to  that].  He  has 
made  good  and  evil  correspond  to  each  other. — Not  find  any- 
thing that  is  to  be  after  him].  God  has  so  mingled  good  and  evil 
that  man  cannot  tell  what  the  future  will  be.  Cf.  323.  Here,  as 
there,  "after  him"  refers  to  what  will  be  in  this  world. 

71.  Dr]  is  best  regarded  as  pred.  adj.  with  Gins,  and  Del.,  not  as 
attributive  (Kn.  and  Hit.). — Dw*]  is  used  in  the  sense  of  3"ia  or  as  in  Ez. 
3913  Zp.  319-  2"  Pr.  221. — V-i';'in]  ^^^  and  g»  omit  the  suffix,  which  is 
here  meaningless.  Ec.  5^^  8^*  and  Is.  17*  are  sometimes  cited  to  show 
that  "I"  here  means  "one's,"  but  they  are  really  not  parallel,  as  in  each 
case  the  accompanying  verb  implies  an  agent.  Probably  the  original 
reading  was  i^J^'  (McN.  and  Dr.),  or  n:;Sn  (Bick.). — 2.  rir^^v],  lit.  "drink- 
ing bouts."  In  vs.  4  we  have  nnru'  no.  In  Est.  9'^  we  find  nnc'a  di> 
nn:;t:M,  which  shows  the  close  association  of  the  words. — ■\'ys2]=" be- 
cause,"*/. Ko.  §3896. — Nin]=  "that." — nr  would  have  been  inappropriate, 
for  it  refers  to  the  thing  first  mentioned.  Del.  remarks  that  Nin  follows 
the  gender  of  ']^D. —  ■'r\r\]^  the  art.  here  is  rightly  pointed  with  -=^  bef.  n. 
Exceptions  to  this  rule  occur  in  Gn.  6'9  and  Is.  ly^. — jS  Sn  |n"']=SN  DC"" 
3^,  2  S.  1333. —  oS  V;'  occurs  with  ci:*  in  Is.  42^5  477  ^yi.  11  and  2S3  in 
I  S.  2i'3.  All  these  expressions  are  syn. — 3.  d;*3],  cf.  on  i'«. — p],  an 
inf.,  so  Del. — D^js  j,n],  cf.  Ne.  2^,  and  the  expression  oS  >*-\  =  "sad  heart," 
which  it  contains. —  ^S  a*^""*],  if  used  in  the  meaning  attaching  to  it  in 
ch.  1 1 9,  makes  no  sense;  if  used  with  a  moral  signification,  it  contra- 
dicts Q.'s  whole  thought.  As  the  first  half  of  the  vs.  makes  a  moral 
signification  imperative,  the  vs.  must  be  a  late  gloss — late,  because  the 


142 


ECCLESIASTES 

expression  everywhere  else  in  the  OT.  has  the  non-moral  meaning,  cf. 
Ju.  iS^oigs-s  I  K.  2i^Ru.  3^Ec.  11^ — 4.  ^^^n].  Del.  remarks  that  the  Zakef 
Katon  on  S3n  divides  the  vs.  instead  of  Athnah,  because  none  of  the 
words  after  Sax.  are  tri-syllabic.  Cf.  for  the  opposite  vs.  7.-5.  nn;?'], 
"rebuke,"  occurs  in  Q.  only  here,  but  is  used  in  Ps.,  Job,  Is.  and  Pr. 
frequently.     Cf.  the  Targ.  on  Zc.  ^^.—W^  ^>\<T.\    Gins,  held  that  the 

normal  form  of  expression  would  be  ycB'a y::tt^S  c^^nS  aito,    but 

Del.,  Wild,  and  McN.  maintain  that  tt'^x  is  introduced  before  pDir  be- 
cause the  two  hearings  are  supposed  to  be  tire  acts  of  different  individ- 
uals.— 6.  an^D],  a  rare  word  for  "thorns."  It  occurs  in  Is.  34^3  Ho.  28 
and  Na.  i^",  also  with  plural  in  m-  in  Am.  42  in  the  sense  of  '■  hook  "  In 
Sabsean  it  is  found  as  a  proper  name  {cf.  Hommel,  ZMG.  xlvi,  532).  It  is 
used  here  for  the  sake  of  the  paranomasia.  — Sip]  stands  for  all  sorts  of 
sounds. — 7.  r''J:>;']  is  connected  with  the  As.  esku,  "strong,"  the  same  stem 
in  Ar.  means  " roughness,"  "  injustice,"  and  in  Syr.,  " slander."  It  often 
means  "extortion,"  cf.  Ps.  62"  Is.  301*  59".  Ew.  emended  to  nc^p  and  Gr. 
to  l^'|■'>',  but  later  comm.  have  realized  that  no  emendation  is  necessary. 
— njPD]  disagrees  with  its  vb.  13N>  in  gender,  cf.  Ges-^^-  §1453- — "^^^^^^ 
Polel  of  SSn,  "to  shout,"  "boast."  It  occurs  in  Is.  44^^  Job  12"  in 
the  sense  it  has  here.  Cf.  the  noun  mSSri  in  i"  a'S  etc.— njno]  is  here= 
inr,  so  Del.,  cf.  i  Mac.  2I8.  Some  of  the  Vrss.  had  a  different  reading, 
but  there  seems  no  reason  to  change  the  MT.,  cf.  Eur.,  p.  82. — .in]  is 
interpretative  of  another's  words  ace.  to  Ko.  §288g. — 8.  nnnN]  oc- 
curs also  in  Pr.  258  in  the  sense  of  "end."  Sieg.  takes  the  word  as 
evidence  that  this  mashal  is  not  from  QS  since  he  has  used  n-D  for 
"end"  in  3".  In  so  small  a  work,  however,  arguments  from  mere  vo- 
cabulary have  little  weight. — ">3-^],  <&  0>n3n.  Perhaps  the  final  D  was 
accidentally  dropped  before  the  following  c— nn  i^n].  tin  is  usually 
coupled  with  d^on  in  the  sense  of  "long  suffering"  or  "patience,"  cf. 
Ex.  346  Pr.  1429  15I8  i632.  With  this  the  Talmudic  usage  agrees,  cf. 
Ja.  i2ia.  In  Pr.  1429,  however,  nn -ixp  is  used  for  the  opposite,  and 
in  i632,   inn3  St-D,  as  a  parallel.— n?;],  constr.  of  ry^}  {cf.  BDB.  147a). 

not  n3i  (Bo.). — 9.  d^d Di>3S],  c/.  on  i'*.     Sieg.  notes  that  d;'3  has  a 

different  meaning  than  in  vs.  3,  and  makes  the  difference  an  argument 
for  difference  of  authorship.  I  agree  as  to  difference  of  authorship,  but 
this  word  is  no  argument  for  it,  since  the  Semites  naturally  employ  the 
same  word  to  express  "anger"  and  "sorrow,"  both  of  which  are  ex- 
pressed in  the  modern  dialect  of  Jerusalem  by  za'lan. — nip P''^^\ 

cf.  mjn nSi,  Pr.  1433. — 10.   n::]  used  in  the  sense  of  n?:S,  as  in  Ct. 

g4. — riDDnc].  <S,  &  and  A  read  nDonj,  which  was  probably  the  original 
reading. — S;j  Sn":']  is  a  late  idiom,  cf,  Ne.  12.  In  earlier  Heb.  it  was 
-S  Sn-^',  cf.  Gn.  43^  and  i  S.  2213.— 11.  Dj;],  with  the  use  of  this 
prep.,  cf.  Ahoth,  22,  y-Mi  '\-\•^  oy  mm  iinSn  nsv — anSnj].  #  has  ap- 
parently  connected    it    mistakenly    with    the    root    S'n— t:'?:rn   ns-], 


USELESSNESS  OF  EXTREMES     [Ch.  7^^"  i^^ 

cf.  ^n\i^  vn  S3  nrx  Sdj  Ps.  589,  and  "^in  hni  Ps.  4920  Job  3I6. — 12.  ^^3  ..  . . 
h^2]  is  a  corrupt  text.  (S,  ^,  S,  ?£,  U,  2C,  ®,  all  support  the  read- 
ing SxD  in  the  second  instance,  while  in  the  first  instance  all,  except  (I, 
support  the  same  reading.  The  text,  therefore,  was  '^sd ^sd,  anal- 
ogous to  Gn.  1825  and  Ho.  4^.  If  MT.  be  retained,  3  must  be  regarded 
as  3  essentia,  cf.  Ges.^-  iigi.  On  '?x=  "protection,"  cf.  Nu.  149 
Je.  48"  and  Ps.  91^. — 13.  nxn],  as  Del.  observes,  is  not=n:.-i,  but  means 
"thoughtfully  consider,"  cf.  ch.  iio  72?.  29  g9_ — ^pp]^  ^n  Aramaism,  cj. 
on  i>^ — ni>],  see  also  on  i'^. — 14.  3it23  n>.-i].  Del.  notes  that  when  31D  is 
used  of  persons,  it  carries  with  it  the  idea  of  ^S,  cf.  Je.  441^  Ps.  25'^. 
(5,  'A,  e,  2C,  and  ^h  read  n>n  for  n\-i,  an  easy  corruption  of  the  text. 
— np3:':']=  "corresponding  to,"  cf.  i  Ch.  24^1  2612. — c'nn^TS;;],  an  Ara- 
"  maism  {cf.  n  n-i3-»  Sp,  Dn.  230  4")  for  the  Heb.  U'^'^  or  "I'C'N  i;'::S.  See 
Ko.  396p. — n;:iND]  was  mistakenly  resolved  into  two  words  by  S  and  H. 


7,5_io3.— ANOTHER   ARRAIGNMENT   OF  LIFE. 

^15-22. — Uselessness  of  going  to  extremes. 

715.  Both  have  I  seen  in  my  vain  life, — ■ 

There  is  a  righteous  man  who  perishes  in  his  righteousness, 

And  there  is  a  wicked  man  who  prolongs  his  life  in  his  wickedness. 

16,  Be  not  greatly  righteous  and  do  not  show  thyself  excessively  wise; 
why  shouldst  thou  ruin  thyself?  ".  Be  not  excessively  wicked,  nor  be  a 
fool;  why  shouldst  thou  die  before  thy  time?  i^.  It  is  good  that  thou 
take  hold  of  this,  and  that  thou  refrain  not  thy  hand  from  that. 

FOR    HE    THAT    FEARS    GOD    SHALL    BE    QUIT    IN    REGARD    TO    BOTH. 

•9.  Wisdom  strengthens  the  wise  mofe  than  ten  rulers  who  are  in  a  city. 

20.  For  there  is  not  a  righteous  man  in  the  earth  who  does  good  and 
sins  not.  21.  Also  to  all  the  words  which  they  speak  do  not  give  heed, 
lest  thou  hear  thy  servant  curse  thee.  22.  Yov  even  many  times  thy  heart 
knows  that  thou  also  thyself  hast  cursed  others. 

7'^  Both  have  I  seen].  Qoheleth  here  drops  the  Solomonic 
mask. — Vain  life]  is  equivalent  to  ''short  life." — Righteous  man 
who  perishes  in  his  righteousness  .  .  .  a  wicked  man  who  prolongs 
his  life  in  his  wickedness].  Qoheleth  here  takes  issue  with  two 
orthodox  OT.  doctrines — (i)  That  the  righteous  have  a  long 
life  (Ex.  2012  Dt.  4^«  Ps.  9116  Pr.  32- 1«  410)^  and  (2)  That  the  wicked 
shall  not  live  out  half  their  days  (Ps.  3 7 '"5 5 23  58^-97318). — 16.  Be  not 
greatly  righteous],  probably  a  reproof  of  the  excessive  legal  ob- 
servances of  the  Chasidim. — Do  not  show  thyself  excessively  wise]. 


144 


ECCLESIASTES 


The  world  often  hates  its  greatest  men  and  makes  marks  of  them. 
In  one  sense  it  is  not  good  to  be  ahead  of  one's  time. — 17.  Be  not 
excessively  wtcked].  Some  interpreters,  as  Del.,  hesitate  to  admit 
that  Qoheleth  really  implies  that  one  may  sin  to  a  moderate  degree. 
That,  hpwever,  is  what  he  undoubtedly  implies.  It  is  true  that 
he  was  led  into  this  statement  by  the  necessity  of  an  antithesis, 
but  there  is  no  reason  to  believe  that  the  thought  was  repugnant 
to  him.'— N'or  be  a  fool].  Righteousness  and  wisdom  are  to  Qo- 
heleth kindred  terms,  while  wickedness  and  folly  form  a  counter- 
balancing couplet. — Why  shouldst  thou  die  before  thy  time?].  In 
spite  of  the  fact  that  Qoheleth  had  seen  many  men  prolong  their 
lives  in  their  wickedness  (vs.  15),  he  recognizes  that  debauchery 
ends  in  premature  death. — 18^  This  .  .  .  that  refer  to  "righteous- 
ness" and  "wickedness"  of  the  two  preceding  verses.  Qoheleth 
here  sums  up  his  thought,  advising  the  avoidance  of  extremes  in 
either  righteousness  or  wickedness.  Cf.  Horace,  Virtus  est 
medium  viatorum  et  utrimque  reductum  (Epist.  I,  18,  9),  and 
Ovid,  Medio  tutissimus  ibis  {Met.  II,  137). 

is''.  For  he  that  fears  God  shall  be  quit  in  regard  to  both].  This  is 
a  gloss  added  by  some  orthodox  Jew,  probably  a  Chasid. — 19.  Wis- 
dom strengthens  the  wise].  It  is  impossible  to  find  any  intelligent 
connection  for  this  verse  with  the  preceding  context.  It  is  un- 
doubtedly an  interpolation  by  the  glossator  who  was  interested 
in  proverbs  (so  Gr.,  Sieg.,  McN.  and  Ha.). — Ten  rulers].  Gins., 
Ty.  and  Plumtre  took  "ten"  as  a  round  number,  Delitzsch  thought 
it  referred  to  some  definite  situation,  such  as  the  archons  at  Athens. 
Wright,  with  more  probability,  compares  the  Mishna  (Megilla,  i^), 
which  says  that  "every  city  is  great  in  which  there  are  ten  men  of 
leisure."  The  idea  here  is  similar,  only  the  "men  of  leisure"  are 
represented  as  "rulers." 

20.  For  there  is  not  a  righteous  man  in  the  earth].  This  connects 
with  vs.  1 8a,  from  which  it  is  now  separated  by  two  interpolations, 
and  gives  the  reason  for  it.  It  is  a  quotation  from  i  K.  8^«.  There 
is  no  good  reason  for  regarding  the  vs.  as  a  gloss,  as  Siegfried  and 
Haupt  do. — 21.  The  words  which  they  speak].  "They"  is  indefi- 
nite, referring  to  men  in  general.  The  way  in  which  men  talk  about 
one  another  is  further  proof  that  all  sin. — Lest  thou  hear  thy  servant 


USELESSNESS  OF  EXTREMES     [Ch.  T'^^^  145 

curse  thee].  One  loses  peace  of  mind  and  often  gains  nothing 
by  seeing  "oursel's  as  ithers  see  us." — 22.  Many  times].  The 
words  are  placed  in  the  first  part  of  the  sentence  for  sake  of  em- 
phasis.— Thy  heart].  The  Hebrew  had  no  word  for  conscience, 
and  so  used  ''heart,"  which  stood  for  the  whole  inner  nature. 
Conscience  {crvveihrj(rL<^)  occurs  first  in  the  Wisdom  of  Solomon^  17'". 
— Thou  also  thyself  hast  cursed  others].  The  verse  is  an  appeal  to 
one's  conscience  to  enforce  the  maxim  of  the  preceding  verse. 
One  knows  how  little  meaning  attaches  to  many  of  his  own  idle< 
words,  and  should  not,  therefore,  listen  to  the  idle  words  of  others. 

715.  SDn]="both,"  cf.  on  2».— ^S^n  >n>D],  cf.  6'2  and  Job  27'2.— inND]. 
DiD>  is  to  be  supplied  in  thought  as  in  Pr.  28^.  It  is  often  expressed, 
as  in  Dt.  426-  ^o  ^30  Jqs.  24^1  and  Pr.  28'6. — 16.  D:)nnn]="to  show  one's 
self  wise,"  cf.  Ex.  i'".  See  also  similar  use  of  Hith.  in  prnnn,  2  S.  lo'^, 
2  Ch.  137;  in  iJNPn,  Dt.  i^^  421,  and  Sdj.-i.-i,  Ps.  10525.  Sieg.  would  render 
it  "play  the  Rabbi,"  citing  N3jnn,  Ez.  13'^,  "play  the  prophet,"  as  a 
parallel. — "^nv],  cf.  on  2^'". —  cipitj'n],  a  Hithpolel.  The  n  is  assimilated 
as  in  |j;3n,  Nu.  212?,  and  nrin,  Is.  i»6.  Cf.  Ges.^-  §54d. — 17.  iny  nS].  nj; 
with  suffix  means  the  proper  or  fitting  time  for  a  thing,  cf.  Ps.  i*  1042^ 
Pr.  1523,  hence  np  n':'  means  "untimely,"  or  an  unfitting  time.  Dv  is 
frequently  used  like  nj?  in  such  expressions,  cf.  Is.  1322  Ps.  3713  Job  1820. 
— 18.  -^•i'N  :3it3],  cf.  on  5^ — -2  t.-^nh],  cf.  Dt.  32". —  nx^],  as  Del.  has  pointed 
out,  is  used  as  in  the  Mishna  in  the  sense  of  "  be  quit  from,"  or  "  guiltless 
of,"  cf.  Berakoth,  2^ :  nS  inS  on,  NX*"  13S  ^p  dn,  N->pcn  pr  }!'>iny  mina  Nnip  r\'>n 
ii'i\  ^  renders  NX"",  n^qeph,  "to  adhere"  or  "follow  closely,"  but  this 
is  an  accidental  error  for  n'phaq. — 19.  ~S  T;;n]  probably  =  "be  strong 
for  the  wise."  Ps.  6829  proves  that  Tiy  may  be  used  transitively.  If  it 
has  a  transitive  force  here,  S  would  be  used  as  in  Aram,  as  ^ga  of  the 
direct  object.  Since  ttj7,  like  As.  ezezu,  usually  means  simply  "be 
strong,"  it  is  unnecessary  to  assume  an  Aramaism. — n-itr;?]  is  taken 
by  Gins,  and  PI.  as  a  round  number="many,"  but  the  parallels  cited 
(Gn.  31^  Nu.  1412  Job  193)  do  not  bear  out  the  interpretation.  Wild, 
takes  the  word  in  the  sense  of  "wealth,"  but  the  versions  are  all  against 
this. — 20.  p>ix  ^N  din],  cf.  ?nj  r^  ?^./?,  Ex.  s'^. — 21.  "n:n''  n'j>N]  is  re- 
garded by  Zap.  and  Ha.  as  a  gloss  for  metrical  reasons. — nm"']  is  im- 
personal, cf.  Ges.K-  §i44f.  Ci>,  ^,  A  and  01  add  D^yc'i,  but  this  is 
really  an  unnecessary  interpretation. — "i^S  ^^n],  cf  on  i'^. — SSpc] 
2  =  Xoi5o0oO»'Tes,  "revile,"  Vv'hich  is  a  happy  rendering.  On  the  mean- 
ing, cf.  Lv.  19"  2  S.  i65.  The  part  is  used  here  after  a  vb.  of  hearing, 
cf.  Ko.  §4iod. — N"'  -i::*n]  (cf.  xSit''  of  7'^)  =  If?  of  earlier  Heb.  Cf.  Est. 
1M210. — 22.  Dj].     Gins,  held  that  this  belongs  to  nnx,  but  because  so  far 


146  ECCLESIASTES 

removed,  another  was  inserted.  Sieg.  regards  it  as  a  dittograph.  It  is 
better  with  Wr.  to  take  it  with  12"?,  cf.  Ho.  6"  Zc.  9>'  Job  21°.— 3^?:>'o 
nni],  the  ace.  of  time.  The  construction  has  been  inverted  for  sake 
of  emphasis  as  in  vs.  20,  also  3'^  5^^. —  "13"\]  Ha.,  for  metrical  reasons, 
regards  a  gl. — y"^'].  (6  and  'A  read  ;n^  here,  which  is  evidently  a  blunder, 
for  it  makes  no  sense.  The  present  reading  of  (§  is  conflate,  that  of  'A 
having  been  combined  with  it  (so  Montfau^on  and  Wr.). — ^n],  Qr. 
nnN,  correct. 

723-29. — The   search  for  wisdom  leads  to  a  severe  judgment  of 
women. 

23.  All  this  I  have  tested  by  wisdom.  I  said  'T  will  be  wise,"  but  it  was 
far  from  me.  24.  Far  off  is  that  which  exists  and  deep,  deep;  who  can 
find  it?  25,  I  turned  in  my  heart  to  know,  to  search  and  to  seek  out 
wisdom  and  (its)  sum,  and  to  know  that  wickedness  is  foolishness;  and 
folly,  madness.  26,  And  I  found  a  thing  more  bitter  than  death — a 
woman  who  is  snares  and  nets  are  her  heart,  and  her  hands  fetters. 

He  that  is  good  before  God  shall  escape  from  her,  but  a 
SINNER  shall  BE  CAUGHT  BY  HER.  27.  gee  this  I  have  found,  says 
Qoheleth,  (adding)  one  to  one  to  find  the  sum.  28.  Which  again  and 
again  my  soul  has  sought  and  I  have  not  found.  One  man  out  of  a 
thousand  I  have  found,  but  a  woman  among  all  these  I  have  not  found. 

29.  only  see  what  I  HAVE  FOUND,  THAT  GOD  MADE  MEN  UPRIGHT, 
BUT    THEY   HAVE   SOUGHT   OUT    MANY   CONTRIVANCES. 

7".  All  this  I  have  tested  by  nisdom].  "All  this"  refers  to  the 
preceding.  The  writer,  as  he  passes  to  a  new  theme,  assures  us 
that  the  preceding  maxims  have  been  tested. — /  said  ''/  will  be 
wise,'^  but  it  was  far  from  me].  Though  Qoheleth  could  by  wis- 
dom test  some  things,  he  declares  that  he  had  found  it  impossible 
to  become  actually  wise.  The  vei-se  really  forms  a  transition  to  a 
new  topic. — 24.  Far  off  is  that  which  exists].  ' '  That  which  exists  " 
seems  here  to  refer  to  the  true  inwardness  of  things,  the  reality 
below  all  changing  phenomena.  This  is  ''far  off,"  man  can  never 
grasp  it. — Deep,  deep].  The  repetition  is  for  emphasis. — Who 
can  find  it?].  ■  On  the  thought  of  the  verse,  compare  Job  iV-  ^ 
2812-28  BS.  2428-  29  Bar.  3'^-23.  29.31  and  Rom.  11  •■'•\— 25.  To  search  and 
seek  out],  cf.  i'^ — To  know  that  wickedness  is  foolishness;,  and 
folly,  madness].  Although  it  is  impossible  to  find  out  the  ultimate 
reality,  as  Qoheleth  has  just  said,  he  could  ascertain  that  wicked- 
ness is  folly,  and  that  folly  is  madness. — 26.  More  bitter  than  death]. 


,  SEVERE  JUDGMENT  OF  WOMEN     [Cn.7^^^'         1 47 

Dea:th  is  frequently  thus  spoken  of,r/.  i  S.  15^-  Pr.  5^  BS.  2821  41 1. — 
A  woman  who  is  snares  and  nets  are  her  heart,  and  her  hands  fetters]. 
The  Hebrews  held  that  the  sin  and  wretchedness  of  man  entered 
the  world  through  woman  (r/.  Gn.  3  6'-^  BS.  252^),  but  Gins,  is 
wrong  in  thinking  that  is  the  thought  here.  Qoheleth  is  inveigh- 
ing against  bad  women  in  the  vein  of  Pr.  5^-  22-  23  722.  23  22'^.  He 
does  not  mean  to  say  that  all  women  are  destructive,  for  in  91" 
he  encourages  honorable  marriage  as  a  source  of  happiness. — He 
that  is  good  before  God].  This  and  all  that  follows  to  the  end  of  vs. 
McNeile  regards  a  Chasid  gloss. — 27.  Adding  one  to  one  to  find 
the  siim\  This  is  an  expression  which  impresses  the  reader  with 
Qoheleth's  laborious  and  thorough  process  of  investigation.  Per- 
haps Qoheleth  was  thinking  of  the  experience  of  Solomon  as  de- 
scribed in  I  K.  ii'ff.  Cf.  BS.  47 '^ — 28.  Again  and  again  my  soid 
has  sought].  He  does  not  say  simply  "I  have  sought."  It  was  no 
mere  curious  inquiry  of  the  intellect,  but  a  heart  search. — One 
man  out  of  a  thousand].  Possibly  the  number  was  suggested  by 
the  number'  in  Solomon's  harem  (cf  i  K.  i^),  but  this  is  uncertain, 
as  ''a  thousand"  is  often  used  as  a  round  number,  see  Ex.  2o« 
34^  Dt.  I"  Job  92  3323  Ps.  50'"  841"  90^  105 « Is.  30'^  6022. — A  woman 
among  all  these  I  have  not  found].  This  implies  that  Qoheleth 
was  something  of  a  misogynist.  He  had  apparently  had  some 
bitter  experience  with  a  member  of  the  opposite  sex.  He  is  more 
than  reflecting  the  Oriental  view  that  women  are  more  prone  to 
sin  than  men.  Chrysostom,  Ho7n.  Ad.  Cor.  28,  represents  the 
Oriental  view  when  he  says,  "Satan  left  Job  his  wife, thinking  she 
would  further  his  purposes."  Qoheleth  is  saying  ''perfect  men 
are  rare,  perfect  women  are  non-existent." 

29.  Sieg.  and  McN.  are  right  in  regarding  this  verse  as  the  work 
of  a  Chasid  glossator. — God  made  men  upright],  probably  a  refer- 
ence to  Gn.  1 26-  27, — They  have  sought  out  many  contrivances]. 
The  point  of  view  here  is  that  o'f  the  writer  J.  in  Gn.  421 «  6^^. 
Perhaps  the  Chasid  intended  to  suggest  that  the  harem  was  one  of 
man's  wicked  Contrivances. 

23.  HDDna  n-'Dj],  cf.  nron::  nn,  113. — nr^^n^  inniON]  is  omitted  as  a  gl. 
by  Zap.  and  Ha.  for  metrical  reasons. — ^nc^nx  is  the  only  instance 
of  a  cohortative  in  the  book.     It  expresses  strong  resolve. — 24.    nvna*  hd] 


148  ECCLESIASTES 

was  misinterpreted  by  (6  and  B.  Probably  their  text  had  been  cor- 
rupted to  n\ityc. — n\-iu]  usually  means  events  or  phenomena  which 
€xist  (i'  315  6'"),  but  the  context  makes  it  necessary  to  understand  it 
here  as  that  which  underlies  phenomena. —  r>cy  pvj],  an  ancient  ex- 
pression of  the  superlative  by  means  of  repetition,  cf.  Ges.^-  §i33k  and 
Ko.  1309m. — 25.  ^2^^]  is  difficult.  Gins,  renders  "I  and  my  heart," 
taking  it  as  a  separate  subj.  AE.,  Herz.,  Moses,  Stuart,  Del.  and  Wr. 
construe  with  what  follows:  "I  turned  and  my  heart  was  to  know." 
79  MSS.,  2,  SI,  and  ^,  however,  read  "'^Sa,  and  as  Winckler  and 
McN.  have  seen,  this  must  have  been  the  original  text,  cf.  2*. — p^C'n], 
an  Aram,  word  =" reckoning,"  ''sum,"  cf.  Ja.  509a.  It  occurs  in  BH. 
only  here,  in  vvs.  27  and  910.  On  its  formation,  cf  Barth,  Nominal- 
bildung,  §202a. — 't'D^  j?'r-i].  McN.,  on  account  of  B  and  a  reading  of 
Jer.  and  some  peculiarities  of  <&,  holds  that  the  original  reading  was 
}!t"\  hoD.  MT.,  as  it  stands,  gives,  however,  a  more  climactic  and  clearer 
thought,  and  should  be  followed. — mSVin  niS^on],  cf.  on  i",  Sieg. 
and  Ha.  regard  the  vs.  as  a  gl.,  the  latter  as  a  double  gl. — 26.  nxic],  in 
late  Heb.  the  part,  is  used  instead  of  various  forms  of  the  verb,  and  here 
is  equivalent  to  a  perfect,  cf  Ko.  §239g.  In  late  Heb.  verbs  "  i<^  are 
often  confused  with  verbs  "nS,  as  here  (cf.  Ges.^-  75rr).  Del.  points 
out  that  in  the  Talmud  (Yebamoth,  63b)  it  is  said  to  have  been  common 
in  Palestine  to  inquire  after  a  wedding  Nsm  ISNXD — "happy  or  un- 
happy?" One  ref.  was  to  Pr.  1822,  the  other  to  this  passage. — n\i]  is 
here  the  copula,  cf.  Gn.  72. — ornxD]  (S  read  iiXD  (sing.). — T^'X  ntrNn 
cnixD  Nvi]="the  woman  who  is  nets."  Cf.  nSfjn  ""jNi,  Ps.  109^ 
Sieg.  regards  the  vs.  as  genuine,  while  Ha.  looks  upon  it  as  a  double 
gloss.  Ha.  declares  that  Qoh.  was  no  misogynist,  but  favored  happy 
marriage,  and  refers  for  proof  to  ch.  g^°.  It  is  difficult  to  escape  the 
conclusion,  however,  that  the  words  here  employed  are  sharpened  by 
a  bitter  personal  experience  with  some  woman.  The  passage  referred 
to  (ch.  9!")  urges  enjoyment  with  a  woman,  not  the  placing  of  trust  in 
her. — 27.  nSnp  n-\DN]  is  the  only  place  where  nSnp  occtirs  with  a  fem. 
vb.  Cf.  i2  128  i2>o.  In  128  we  have  nSnpn  nnx,  and  the  majority  of 
scholars  so  take  it  here  (Grot.,  Houb.,  Mich.,  Durell,  Van  der  P.,  Stuart, 
Elst.,  Heil.,  Wr.,  Wild.,  Ges.^-  §i22r,  Ko.  §25id,  and  Dr.).— 28.  ntrN] 
Perles  would  change  to  ntt'N,  but  nothing  in  the  versions  supports  this. 
Ko.  (1383a)  regards  na'N  far  more  effective. — ti;']  as  in  Ru.  i»  here= 
"again  and  again." — d^n]  is  explained  by  Gr.  and  Sieg.  as  a  Graecism 
for  AvOpoTTos,  but  as  McN.  has  noted  din  is  opposed  to  n-^N  in  Gn. 
222. 23. 25  ^8.  12. 17. 20. 21  (J  )^  wherc  there  can  be  no  Greek  influence. — r)vn]. 
Perhaps  Q.  is  thinking  of  the  '^^n  nc'N  of  Pr.  311". — 29.  nj'^],  "alone," 
then  "only,"  occurs  here  in  an  unusual  sense.  Its  occurrence  in  Is.  26'' 
is  kindred,  but  not  quite  parallel. — D-ivsn],  generic  ="  mankind,"  as  ncn 
shows. — "»r'']=" honorable,"  "morally  upright,"  cf.   1  S.  29*. — ."iij^'krn], 


REFLECTIONS  ON  DESPOTISM     [Ch.  S'-'  149 

a  rare  word,  occurring  only  here  and  in  2  Ch.  26'5.     It  means  "contriv- 
ances," "devices."     In  Ch.  it  is  applied  to  engines  of  war. 

8>-s. — Reflections  on  despotism. 

8'.    IVAo  is  like  the  7uisc  man  f 

And  who  knows  the  interpretation  of  a  matter  ? 

The  wisdom  of  a  man  illumines  his  face 

And  the  coarseness  of  his  countenance  is  changed. 

2.  Observe  the  command  of  a  king,  even  on  account  of  the  oath 

OF  GOD.'  '.  DO  NOT  RASHLY  GO  FROM  BEFORE  HIM,  NOR  STAND  IN  AN 

EVIL  MATTER,  for  what  he  will  he  does.     ^  For  the  word  of  a  king  is 
supreme,  and  who  shall  say  to  him :  what  doest  thou  ? 

5,    A   COMMANDMENT-KEEPER    SHALL   KNOW   NO   HARM 

AND   TIME    AND   JUDGMENT    A    WISE   HEART    KNOWS. 
«.    FOR   EVERY    MATTER   HAS    A   TIME    AND   JUDGMENT. 

For  the  misery  of  man  is  great  upon  him. 

7.  For  there  is  no  one  who  knows  that  which  shall  be,  for  when  it 
shall  be,  who  shall  tell  him  ?  ».  No  man  has  mastery  over  the  wind,  to 
restrain  the  wind,  nor  is  he  ruler  in  the  day  of  death,  nor  is  there  a 
furlough  in  war,  nor  will  wickedness  effect  an  escape  for  its  owners. 
9.  All  this  I  have  seen  and  have  applied  my  heart  to  all  the  work  that 
is  done  under  the  sun,  at  a  time  when  man  has  power  over  man  to  his  hurt. 

8'.  Who  is  like  the  wise  ina?i].  This  verse  which  consists  of  two 
gnomic  sayings,  has  been  rightly  regarded  by  Sieg.  and  McN.  as 
from  the  hand  of  the  Hokma  glossator. — Illumines  his  face], 
gives  it  graciousness  and  power  to  inspire  {cf.  Nu.  6"  Ps.  4*), 
enables  it  to  express  courage  (cf.  Job  29^^),  and  intelligence  (cf 
Ps.  19*). — The  coarseness  of  his  countenance  is  changed],  such 
is  the  transforming  power  of  character. 

2.  On  account  of  the  oath  of  God],  prohsihly  the  oath  of  allegiance 
taken  at  the  king's  coronation,  cf.  1  Ch.  11  ^  29^^  Jos.  Ant.  xv, 
10^;  xvii,  2\  McN.  rightly  assigns  this  clause  to  the  Chasid 
glossator.  Qoheleth's  statements  are  greatly  strengthened  when 
the  glosses  are  removed.  Sieg.  and  Ha.  needlessly  assign  the 
whole  section  to  glossators. — 3.  Do  not  rashly  go  from  before  him], 
rebel  against  him  or  renounce  his  service. — Stand  in  an  evil  matter]. 
This  is  ambiguous.  It  may  mean  (i)  "Linger  not  in,"  (2) 
"Enter  not  in"  (cf.  Ps.  :•  106-'^  Je.  23'8),  or  (3)  "Stand"  (as  king) 


1 50  ECCLESIASTES 

{cf.  Dn.  823 1 1 20).  Probably  the  second  meaning  is  nearer  the  writ- 
er's thought,  at  least  the  context  favors  the  interpretation  "enter 
not  into  opposition  to  him."  See,  however,  crit.  note. — For  what 
he  will  he  does].  It  is  accordingly  folly  for  a  puny  subject  to  op- 
pose him.  This  bears  out  the  interpretation  we  have  given  to  the 
preceding  clause. — 4.  For  the  word  of  a  king  is  supreme].  This  is 
given  as  an  additional  reason  for  the  preceding  exhortation. — Who 
shall  say  to  him,  what  doest  thou?],  a  thought  which  is  several 
times  expressed  concerning  God  (cf.  Is.  45 »  Job  9^2  Wisd.  i2'2), 
but  is  here  purposely  used  to  describe  the  autocratic  power  of  a 
king. 

5.  A  commandment-keeper  shall  know  no  harm].  This  statement 
is  brought  in  in  such  a,  way  that  the  "commandment "  seems  to  be 
that  of  the  king  previously  referred  to — a  fact  which  has  led  many 
interpreters  to  compare  it  to  Rom.  131-5.  The  word  for  command 
is  usually  applied  to  commands  of  Yahweh  (see  crit.  note),  and 
the  thought  contradicts  vvs.  6b  and  7.  McNeile  is  accordingly 
right  in  regarding  the  vs.  as  from  the  Chasid  glossator. — Know  no 
harm],  "know"  is  used  in  the  sense  of  "experience,"  as  in  Ez. 
25'^  Ho.  9^ — Time  and  judgment],  i.e.,  the  final  end  and  de- 
termination.— The  wise  heart  knows],  cf.  Ps.  9o'2. — 6^  For  every 
matter  has  a  time  and  judgment].  This  remark  is  also  from  the 
Chasid  annotator,  and  gives  his  reason  for  the  preceding  remark. 

6  .  For  the  misery  of  man  is  great  upon  him].  This,  except  the 
word  "for"  which  is  editorial,  is  a  remark  of  Qoheleth  himself, 
and  connects  immediately  with  the  statement  of  vs.  4,  concern- 
ing the  irresponsible  character  of  the  king,  though  it  has  now  been 
removed  from  it  by  the  glossator's  interpolations.  It  is  the  be-' 
ginning  of  Qoheleth's  reflections  upon  the, evils  of  tyfanny. — 7.  No 
one  who  knows  that  which  shall  he].  This  is  not  as  in  322  and  612 
simply  a  reference  to  the  fact  that  the  future  is  unknown,  but  to 
the  fact  that  one  never  knows  what  an  irresponsible  despot  will 
do.  The  writer  blends,  however,  his  statement  of  the  impossi- 
bility of  knowing  what  a  despot  will  do  with  a  statement  of  the 
inscrutable  character  of  the  future. — When  it  shall  be].  Neither 
can  one  tell  when  the  despot  will  choose  to  do  it.  The  uncertainty 
causes  misery. — 8.  No  man  has  mastery  over  the  winds],  cf.  ch.  ii^ 


REFLECTIONS  ON  DESPOTISM     [Ch.  S'-'  151 

Qoheleth  illustrates  the  powerlessness  of  man  to  know  the  future 
by  examples  of  his  powerlessness  in  other  respects.  He  cannot 
control  the  winds.  The  wind  is  one  of  God's  grandest  creations 
(Am.  4' 3),  and  a  symbol  of  his  power  (Na.  i^),  the  control  of 
which  is  in  his  own  hands  (Pr.  30^). — Nor  is  he  ruler  in  the  day  of 
death],  a  second  example  of  man's  powerlessness. — Nor  is  there 
furlough  in  war].  This  statement  seems  to  contradict  Dt.  20^-8 
255.  According  to  i  Mac.  y^  Judas  Maccabaeus  conformed  to 
one  of  these  laws.  John  Hyrcanus  (135-104  B.C.)  employed 
foreign  mercenaries  (r/.  Jos.  A7tt.  xiii,  8^).  No  soldier  in  such 
ranks  could  obtain  a  discharge  when  his  employer  had  a  war  on 
hand.  Such  mercenaries  had  been  employed  freely  in  Egypt 
from  the  time  of  the  XXVIth  dynasty  (cf.  Breasted's  History 
of  Egypt,  p.  569  ff.),  and  by  the  Persians  in  all  periods  of  their 
history;  so  that  it  was  in  Qoheleth's  day  no  new  thing.  The 
allusion  is  probably  to  such  soldiers,  and  thus  becomes  a  third 
illustration  of  Qoheleth's  point. — 9.  All  this  I  have  seen],  the  power 
of  the  despot  described  in  vvs.  1-8. — Applied  my  heart  to  all  the 
work],  thoughtfully  considered,  or  investigated. — When  man  has 
power  over  man  to  his  hurt].  This  is  an  apt  description  of  the  in- 
justices of  an  Oriental  despotism.  Such  injustice  has  existed 
under  every  Oriental  monarchy,  the  allusion  accordingly  affords 
no  clue  to  the  date.  ''To  his  hurt"  is  ambiguous,  (li,  ^  and  (5, 
which  are  followed  by  Kn.,  Gins.,  Zo.,  Del.  and  Wild.,  make  it 
refer  to  the  second  man.  2  and  Hitzig  and  Ha.  take  it  to  refer 
to  the  first  man.  The  first  of  these  view^s  is  the  correct  one.  The 
retribution  to  which  allusion  is  made  at  the  end  of  vs.  9  is  often 
delayed,  and  meantime  the  subjects  of  the  tyrant  suffer. 

8».  odphd]  for  the  more  common  D^r\D.  The  full  writing  of  the  article 
occurs  not  infrequently  in  later  Hebrew,  cf.  Ges."^-  §35n. — "^-'s],  an 
Aram,  loan  word,  occurring  only  here  in  BH.,  but  frequently  in  Aram. 

(cf.    Dn.    2^-    5-    6.    7.    9.    16.    24.    25.   26.  30.  36.  45  ^4.   6.   15.   16.   21   ^12.   16^    etC. "^J"']      herC 

=  "thing,"  "matter,"  as  in  i»  and  78. — i^Jfl  "^'^^l  cf.  Nu.  625  Ps.  4^ 
Job  292^  Pr.  1615  and  BS.  1325  (Heb.)  for  "^ix  with  D^ry,  Ps.  igK—O'iD  v;]. 
The  Versions  read  ri  the  adj.,  not  v;  the  noun.  This  should  be 
adopted.  It  is  used  of  "shamelessness,"  "impudence,"  or  "coarse- 
ness," cf.  Dt.  28*°  Pr.  7>3  2i29  Dn.  823. —  nv^;]  for  npa'v  «'"?  and  n""? 
verbs  are  often  confused  in  the  later  books,  cf.  Ges.^-  §75rr  and  2  K. 


152  ECCLESIASTES 

2529  with  Je.  5233  and  La.  4'.  Some  of  the  Rabbis  interpreted  this  as 
fr.  nja':^ "change,"  others  fr.  NJ.:'="hate"  (so  Qi  and  &),  see  the  dis- 
cussions cited  by  Del.  and  Wr.  from  the  Talmud,  Shabbath,  30b,  and 
Taanith,  7b.— 2.  ^jn]  is  difficult.  Heil.,  Gins.,  Del.,  Wr.,  Sieg.  and 
Ha.  .supply  Tf^DN  as  in  2'  ^^,  etc.  These  passages  are,  however,  not 
parallel,  for  in  the  nine  cases  in  which  Q.  uses  this  expression  he  presents 
the  products  of  his  observations,  which  is  not  -the  case  here.  Wild, 
conjectures  that  the  reading  was  ''JJ,  as  so  often  in  Prov.  1-9,  but 
this  is  purely  conjectural.  (I,  ^,  51  and  A,  which  Eur.  follows,  read 
ns",  which  is  probably  the  correct  reading. —  "'o]  by  metonomy  for  "com- 
mand," cf.  Gn.  4521  Ex.  171  Lv.  2412  Nu.  3i«  Job  39". — i^p],  Sieg.  con- 
tends, is  used  in  Qoh.,  without  the  art.,  in  a  definite  sense  like  fiaaiXevs, 
but  it  does  not  seem  necessary  so  to  regard  it. — .i"i3n  S;*],  cf.  on  3I8. — 
d\iSn  nv3r]=  nin'»  dy;tc  of  Ex.  22K'  2  S.  2V  i  K.  2".  The  genitive  rela- 
tion is  used  instead  of  3,  cf.  Ko.  §336t  p. — 3.  Sn^n],  is  taken  by  (g,  #  and 
A,  which  Dale,  Sieg.  and  McN.  follow,  with  the  preceding  verse.  Two 
verbs  may  be  combined,  however,  in  a  single  idea,  as  is  frequent  in  Heb., 
cf.  Gn.  1922  I  S.  2^  35  Zc.  81*,  etc.,  one  of  them  having  an  adverbial  force. 
Wild.'s  objection  that  one  of  them  must  be  in  the  inf.  with  'r,  does  not 
hold  for  all  cases.     Cf.  Da.  §83(0).— >n  •>3^]  Dt.  171  2  K.  4^1,  etc. 

4.  Ti'N3]="for,"  "because,"  cf.  on  2'8  ("?.*?)• — pi^Sr],  a  noun,  mean- 
ing "master,"  "ruler."  It  occurs  in  BH.  only  here  and  vs.  8.  It  is  an 
Aram,  loan  word,  occurring  frequently  in  Jewish  Aram.,  cf.  Ja.  I58ib^. 
It  is  here  used  adjectively. — 5.  nixc]  may  be  used  either  of  a  king,  as 
I  K.  2"  2  K.  i8's,  or  a  man,  as  Je.  SS^*'  ^®'  ^S  or  of  God,  as  Ezr.  lo^,  and 
frequently  in  D.,  e.g.,  Dt.  8^-  2.  Cf  also  Ps.  199.  The  Chasid  intro- 
duced here  a  phrase  coined  concerning  God,  and  made  it  apply  ambigu- 
ously to  a  king. — ""» i^-'],  if  this  has  the  same  meaning  as  in  vs.  3,  it 
means  he  will  "know  no  wrong,"  i.e.,  will  be  innocent,  but  Zo.  and 
Sieg.  are  right  in  taking  it  in  the  sense  of  >n  of  Ps.  loi^ — 6.  l'on]= 
"matter,"  "business,"  cf.  on  31,  also  Ko.  §80. — n>n],  d,  0  and  A  read 
n;?"i,  but  this  gives  no  intelligible  thought  here,  and  must  be  an  early 
corruption. — 7.  nin">r]^  ^  and  ol  add  iJ'Dj  or  did'^,  but  it  is  clearly 
an  explanatory  addition  and  hot  original. — i-.i'N3]  was  interpreted  by. 
Kn.,  Hit.,  Heil.  and  Zo.  as  "how,"  but  Gins,  and  Del.  rightly  oppose 
this.  It  always  means  "when,"  even  in  Qoheleth,  cf.  4"  5^  and  S'*. 
— 8.  t3>S;r],  an  adj.,  cf.  BDB.  1020b  and  Barth,  NB.  §35.  Elsewhere  the 
word  is  a  noun.  On  the  root  oSr,  see  on  2>9. — "':']  points  to  a  conse- 
quence, cf.  Ko.  §4o6a. — 'n}r\7\  nx  nSdS]  is  regarded  by  Zap.  and  Ha.  as 
a  gi.,  on  account  of  their  metrical  theory. — |vj'?r],  see  on  vs.  4. — ."^nSttr.], 
a  late  word,  occurring  elsewhere  in  BH.  only  in  Ps.  78^ «,  jt  jg  found  in 
Aram,  in  the  Midrash  to  Numbers,  cf.  Ja.  855b. — nDnSca],  ($  read 
ncn^D  DV3.  Possibly  this  is  the  correct  reading,  though  as  McN. 
suggests,  it  may  be  a  corruption  arising  from  an  accidental  doubling  of 


RESULTS  OF  RIGHTEOUSNESS     [Ch.  8i<^'5  i^^ 

the  n  in  nrnS::^. — vS>a],  see  on  51". — 9.  p~J^],  an  inf.  abs.  used  as  a 
finite  verb,  cj.  ch.  9^1  Gn.  41^^  also  Ges.^^-  §1132,  Da.  §88(a),  and 
Ko.  §2i8b. — 3S  p.nj],  cf.  on  i'^. — -\';\  ace.  of  time,  cf.  Je.  51^3  and  Ko. 
§33ib.  Others,  as  McN.,  take  it  as  the  beginning  of  a  new  sentence  = 
"there  is  a  time." 

810-15.  Results  of  righteousness  and  godlessness  the  same. 

8'".  And  then  I  saw  wicked  men  buried,  carried  even  from  the  holy 
place,  and  they  used  to  go  about  and  be  praised  in  the  city  because  they 
had  done  so.     This  also  is  vanity. 

11.  BECAUSE  THE  SENTENCE  AS  TO  AN  EVIL  DEED  IS  NOT  ACCOMPLISHED 
QUICKLY,  THEREFORE  THE  HEART  OF  THE  SONS  OF  MEN  IN  THEM  IS 
FULLY  (given)  TO  DO  EVIL.  i-.  ALTHOUGH  A  SINNER  DOES  EVIL  EX- 
CEEDINGLY, AND  PROLONGS  HIS  DAYS,  NEVERTHELESS  I  KNOW  THAT  IT 
SHALL  BE  WELL  WITH  THOSE  WHO  FEAR  GOD,  WHO  FEAR  BEFORE  HIM. 
13.  AND  IT  SHALL  NOT  BE  WELL  WITH  THE  WICKED,  NOR  SHALL  HE  PRO- 
LONG HIS  DAYS  LIKE  A  SHADOW,  BECAUSE  HE  DOES  NOT  FEAR  BEFORE  GOD. 

".  There  is  a  vanity  which  is  done  upon  the  earth,  that  there  are 
righteous  men  to  whom  it  happens  according  to  the  work  of  the  wicked, 
and  there  are  wicked  men  to  whom  it  happens  according  to  the  work 
of  the  righteous, — I  say  that  this  also  is  vanity,  i^  And  I  praised  glad- 
ness, because  there  is  no  good  for  a  man  under  the  sun,  but  to  eat  and 
to  drink  and  to  rejoice,  and  it  shall  attend  him  in  his  toil  the  days  of 
his  life,  which  God  gives  to  him  under  the  sun. 

10.  Wicked  men  buried],  i.e.,  pass  away  in  honor.  Not  to  be 
buried  was  to  be  greatly  dishonored,  cf.  Je.  i6^  ^  221'.  See  also 
on  6^ — Carried  even  from  the  holy  place].  For  the  reasons  for  this 
rendering,  see  critical  note.  These  wicked  men  had  passed  their 
lives  even  in  the  temple,  w^here  they  ought  never  to  have  been  toler- 
ated. The  holy  place  is  the  sanctuary,  cf  Lv.  7*. — They  used  to 
go  about  and  be  praised],  for  the  justification  of  this  rendering, 
see  critical  note. — In  the  city],  probably  Jerusalem. — Because  they 
had  done  so],  i.e.,  had  ruled  over  others  to  their  hurt,  cf.  vs.  9,  the 
end..  The  verse  is  a  further  confirmation  of  the  fact  that  retribution 
does  not  always  quickly  overtake  the  ''possessors  of  wickedness." 

11.  Sentence  as  to  an  evil  deed  is  not  accomplished  quickly'].  The 
Chasid  glossator  here  takes  up  the  thought  of  Qoheleth  that  retri- 
bution is  sometimes  delayed.  So  correctly,  Sieg.,  Ha.  and  McN. — 
The  heart  of  the  sons  of  men  is  f idly  given  to  do  evil],  i.e.,  men  are 
governed  by  childish    evasions   of    penalty,  cf.  Ps.  73  ^-'^ — 12. 


154  ECCLESIASTES 

Although  a  sinner  does  evil  exceedingly  and  prolongs  his  days],  is 
not  prematurely  cut  off  from  those  blessings  which  that  age  re- 
garded as  the  peculiar  rewards  of  the  righteous,  cf.  on  6^.  For 
the  basis  of  the  rendering  "  exceedingly,"  see  critical  note.  This 
vs.  is  also  a  comment  of  the  Chasid  glossator. — /  know  that  it  shall 
be  well  with  them  that  fear  God].  The  sinner,  in  the  view  of  this 
annotator,  runs  the -risk  of  disastrous  retribution,  but  the  religious 
man,  although  his  actual  lot  may  be  no  more  prosperous  than  that 
of  some  rich  men,  is  nevertheless  free  from  this  risk. — Who  fear 
before  him].  This  is,  for  metrical  reasons,  regarded  by  Zap.  and 
Ha.  as  a  gloss.  It  is  probably  simply  a  tautology  of  the  late  period 
of  the  language,  cf.  ch.  42- «  and  6^—13.  It  shall  not  be  well  with  the 
wicked].     This  reflects   the   orthodox   Jewish   doctrine,   see   Pr. 

I025.    27    1427    i53l    Job    526    1^32    20^  •    ^    2216   Is_    5^20  Ps^    ^g6    io2ll   Wlsd.    4*. 

— Nor  shall  he  prolong  his  days].  This  seems  to  contradict  vs.  12. 
Probably  the  Chasid  glossator  (for  the  verse  clearly  reflects  his 
hand,  so  Sieg.,  Na.  and  McN.)  meant  to  state  his  conviction  that, 
generally  speaking,  the  wucked  man  did  not  prolong  his  days,  and 
that  the  concession  made  in  the  preceding  vs.  represents  the  ex- 
ception rather  than  the  rule. — Like  a  shadow].  There  are  three 
ways  of  explaining  these  words:  (i)  With  RV.  and  McN.  we 
may  take  them  as  an  emblem  of  transitoriness,  expressive  of  the 
rapidly  fleeting  life  of  the  sinner,  cf.  RV.,  "His  days  which  are 
as  a  shadow."  This  interpretation  has  in  its  favor  the  fact  that 
the  figure  elsewhere  in  the  OT.  has  this  force,  cf.  on  6^^.  (2)  (f^, 
^,  II,  followed  by  Hit.  and  others,  divide  the  vs.  differently,  render- 
ing ''like  a  shadow  are  those  who  do  not  fear  God,"  taking  the 
figure  to  indicate  the  transitoriness  of  the  sinners  themselves. 
(3)  The  rendering  we  have  followed  takes  the  figure  differently, 
and  makes  the  point  of  the  illustration  the  fact  that  at  evening  the 
shadows  become  long,  and  implies  that  sinners  never  reach  the 
evening  of  life.  Although  not  used  in  that  sense  elsewhere,  there 
is  no  good  reason  why  it  may  not  be  so  used  here. 

14.  Righteous  men  to  whom  it  happens  according  to  the  work  of 
the  wicked].  In  Job  2V  this  fact  is  stated  as  in  passionate  grief, 
here  with  a  calmness  which  indicates  that  it  had  become  a  part  of 
the  recognized  order  of  things,  though  one  of  the  proofs  of  the 


RESULTS  OF  RIGHTEOUSNESS     [Ch.8"^'5  155 

"vanity  "  of  life.  Or  is  the  difference  one  of  artistic  expression, 
the  poet  in  Job  speaking  in  the  character  of  an  acute  sufferer,  while 
Qoheleth  speaks  as  a  reflecting  thinker?  *'  Work  "  is  used  as  the 
fruits  of  work,  or  ''wages." — 15.  /  praised  gladness].  The  re- 
flections 01  Qoheleth  bring  him  back  to  the  thought  expressed  in 
322  and  5'^  It  runs  Hke  a  refrain  through  the- book.  It  is  a  mate- 
riahstic  point  of  view,  but  it  kept  the  writer  from  despair.  Life 
is  out  of  joint,  the  rewards  of  goodness  and  wickedness  are  often 
reversed,  no  ray  of  light  falls  on  the  future,  but  make  the  most  of 
the  present;  eat,  drink  and  have  a  good  time  while  one  can,  per- 
haps on  the  ground  that  God  even  could  not  rob  one  of  pleasures 
actually  enjoyed. 

10.  p3  made  up  of  2  and  ID,  a  combination  which  occurs  besides  in 
BH.  only  in  Est.  j\^^,  but  is  common  in  Aram.  {cf.  BZ^B.  486a,  and  Ja. 
170a,  647b).  It  is  an  Aramaism.  05  correctly  renders  it  rbre. — in3.] 
should  be  emended  on  the  authority  of  <g,  2C  and  ^h  to  D'^N^ir.  The 
text  of  M.  is  here  meaningless,  as  the  various  renderings  which  in31  has 
received  at  the  hands  of  interpreters  prove — some  having  taken  it  to 
mean  "entering  into  the  world"  (Kn,,  Gins,  and  Wr.);  others,  "enter 
into  life"  (Ew.),  and  still  others,  "enter  into  rest"  (Zo.,  Wild.,  Sieg., 
Ha.).  The  emendation  makes  a  translation  possible.  On  the  construc- 
tion of  D''N3iD,  cf.  Ko.  §41  la. — C'np  Dipc]  naturally  means  temple  {cf. 
Lv.  76  Mt.  24>5).  This  natural  meaning  suits  our  emended  text.  The 
difficulty  of  rendering  it  with  in3  has  led  some  to  render  "grave"  (Ew., 
Marsh.),  others  "Jerusalem"  (Hit.,  Wild.),  while  Del.  and  Ko.  (§305d) 
rightly  take  it  as  "holy  place." — oSn^J  is,  as  the  text  stands,  difficult. 
To  take  it  as=a  Hiph.,  as  many  do,  is  also  unsatisfactory.  Elsewhere 
the  Piel  is  not  used  for  the  Kal.  On  the  basis  of  (I,  W^,  'A  and  9  we 
should  emend  to  IdSh-ii.  For  the  force  of  the  Piel,  cf.  ch.  41^  ii9  and 
Job  241". — inDnt'"")]  is  difficult.  It,  too,  should  be  emended,  according 
to  (&,  'A,  e,  2C,  ?n,  B,  g^H  and  20  MSS.,  to  in^nu-^i  (so  Kn.,  Winck., 
Marsh.),  which  is  here  pass,  and  not  reflexive,  cf.  Ko.  §101. — ~p]  is 
to  be  taken  in  its  ordinary  sense  of  "thus."  The  difficulties  of  trans- 
lating MT.  as  it  stands  led  Kn.,  Gins.,  Del.  and  Ha.  to  take  VJ';?  p= 
"to  do  right,"  and  to  suppose  that  two  classes  are  referred  to  in  the 
verse,  p  has  this  meaning  in  2  K.  7  9,  but  here  it  should  be  akin  to  p3 
in  some  way.  The  original  text,  as  the  versions  testify,  made  allusion 
to  but  one  class,  S  alone  taking  this  as  Del.  does. — 11.  nrgj],  Zo.,  Wild, 
and  Albrecht  {ZAW.  XVI,  115)  would  point  r\t:p__,  but  Del.  and  Wr. 
take  it  as  fem.  part,  (not  3d  sing,  fern.)  as  it  stands,  regarding  Dins 
a  fem.  as   well  as  masc.  in  gender.     This    is    probably  right. — ai'^s] 


156  ECCLESIASTES 

is  a  Persian  word,  in  old  Persian  patigama,  late  Pers.  paigam,  Armenian 
patgam.  In  BH.  it  occurs  elsewhere  only  in  Est.  i^",  but  frequently 
in  Aram.,  cf^'Dn.  3'«  4"  Ezr.  /^"  5"  "  6'i. — In  post-BH.  it  occurs  in  BS. 
5 11  89.— n;?in  nti^c],  CI,  B,  #  and  A  read  n>'-in  ^c^o.  The  analogy 
of  y  La.  42  and  Ct.  f~  is  in  favor  of  MT.  as  it  stands. — nnnj:]  here, 
as  usually  in  BH.,  an  adverbial  ace,  cf.  Nu.  17"  Dt.  11"  Jos.  8"  lo* 
23'*,  etc. — 3S  vht]  is  a  late  Heb.  expression,  cf.  ch.  9^  Est.  7*  and  Ex. 
35'5  (PS).  In  Aram.  (Targ.  of  On.)  it  means  "comfort  the  heart," 
cf.  Ja.  789b.  Here  it  means  that  the  thoughts  (aS)  are  fully  occupied 
with  evil  plans. — □■"i^]  is  a  pleonasm,  not  uncommon  in  late  writing, 
— 12.  N-yp.-i]  for  Nrn.  On  the  mixture  of  verbs  n"^  and  n"S,  cf.  on  726. — T\nt\, 
iL  sujjplies  D^JC".  One  has  to  supply  this,  or  D^::''  or  ccys.  The  last 
is  favored  by  Zo.,  Del.,  Wr.  and  McN.  The  ornissiori  of  the  noun  is 
harsh  and  unusual.  The  Vers,  had  different  readings,  showings  thetext 
to  be  corrupt,  d,  ^^  a,nd  21  read  tnc  ^airo  t6t€).  'A,  S  and  0  read 
dTr€6av€v=r^r^  or  n"'?2,  while  2C  has  a  conflate  of  both  readings.  "H, 
^  and  ®  support  MT.  As  McN.  observes  (p.  148),  none  of  these  are 
satisfactory.  It  is  necessary  to  presuppose  an  original  which  will  ac- 
count for  all  readings.  McN.  suggests  two  possibilities:  (i)  A  scribe 
began  to  write  "1^")ndi,  but  having  accidentally  omitted  \  discovered 
his  mistake  when  he  had  written  "^nd  and  wrote  the  word  again.  Then 
-I^nNrinNc  became  'en  rxr',  and  later  'ci  pno  and  'di  nc.  (2)  The 
original  text  had  "is::,  which  would  similarly  give  rise  to  the  variants. 
The  latter  seems  the  more  probable  and  has  been  adopted  above  in  the 
translation. — l"'"*^-];  ^"'^^  is  to  be  understood  in  thought,  cf.  on  715. 
— 31  ":].  Ko.'s  "wenn  auch"  (§394f)  does  not  suit  the  context.  Heil.'s 
"tamen"  or  McN.'s  "surely  also"  is  much  more  probable. — 2VJ  n",-!  ]. 
The  thought  is  similar  to  the  D.  point  of  view  {cf.  Dt.  6^^)  and  the  Chasid 
(Ps.  37^^.  Zap.  and  Ha.  for  metrical  reasons  regard  vjj'^::  in-ci  -\z'i<\ 
as  a  gloss.  It  is  tautological,  but  not  more  so  than  the  book  is  elsewhere. 
— 13.  '^s::],  (^  read  Si'3.  Vi'p  makes  much  better  sense,  and  the  variant 
is  probably  due  to  an  early  corruption. — 14.  yynr\  '?;■],  a  variant  for  rnn 
CD*.:'."!,  which  is  more  common. — ■>::'n]  Ha.  regards asagloss. — ~'^n  >"'J*:]= 
"to  happen  to,"  cf.  Est.  9^6  Ps.  32^,  also  Ko.  §3 23d.  Cl^  read  -'^;'  y^JO 
here. —  ^t;7:.]>for  the  peculiar  use  of  this  word,  cf.  i  S.  252. —  orj],  cf.  on 
i'^. — 15.  Nin  ]  begins  a  new  clause. —  iJi*:"],  "cling  to"  or  "accompany" 
one,  cf.  BDB.  530b.  It  takes  an  ace.  like  poi  in  Gn.  ig^^.  .  For  metri- 
cal reasons,  Ha.  regards  rDrn  pnn  and  dvi'?n."i  iV  jpj  as  glosses. — 
DN  >D  ='"but,"  cf.  Ko.  §372i. 

S'^-g".     Knowledge  cannot  be  obtained,  yet  Qoheleth,  knowing  this, 
makes  the  effort. 

8'fi.  When  I  gave  my  heart  to  know  wisdom  and  to  see  the  toil  that  is 
done  upon  the  earth — for  both  day  and  night  he  sees  no  sleep  with  his 


KNOWLEDGE  CANNOT  BE  OBTAINED     [Ch.  S'^-O'     1 57 

eyes — '^.  then  I  saw  all  the  work  of  God,  that  man  is  not  able  to  fathom 
the  work  that  is  done  under  the  sun;  for  as  much  as  man  may  toil  to 
search,  but  he  will  not  fathom  it,  and  even  if  the  wise  man  think  he  is 
about  to  know,  he  will  not  be  able  to  fathom  it.  9'.  For  all  this  I  took  to 
heart,  and  my  heart  saw  all  this,  that  the  righteous  and  the  wise  and 
their  works  are  in  the  hand  of  God;  also  men  do  not  know  love  or  hate; 
all  before  them  is  vanity. 


16.  Whett  I  gave  my  heart].  This  is  the  protasis,  the  apodosis 
of  which  occurs  in  vs.  17,  the  last  part  of  vs.  16  being  a  parenthesis. — 
Toil  that  is  done  upon  the  earth].  This  recalls  ch.  i^^,  in  which  the 
toil  of  men  is  described  by  the  same  graphic  Hebrew  word. — He 
sees  no  sleep].  ''He"  refers  to  man.  In  i'^  the  toil  is  called  the 
toil  of  man,  and  the  writer  here  presupposes  that  man  as  the 
victim  of  the  toil  is  lying  in  the  background  of  the  reader's  thought 
as  in  his  own.  *'To  see  sleep"  is  an  unusual  figure,  but  is  used 
by  Cicero,  Ad  Familiares,  vii,  30:  '^Fiiit  enim  mirifica  vigilantia, 
qui  sua  toto  consulatu somnumnonvideriV^ ;  also  Terence, Heautonti- 
morumenos,  in,i,82:  '^Somnum  hercle  ego  hac  node  oculis  non  vidi 
meis.^'  Ordinarily  in  the  Bible  the  thought  is  expressed  differently, 
cf.  Gn.  31^"  Ps.  132^  Pr.  6^.  It  is,  however,  simply  a  bold  metaphor 
which  anyone  might  employ,  and  no  dependence  on  extra  Hebrew 
sources  need  be  suspected. — 17.  He  may  toil  to  search,  but  he  will 
not  fathom  it].  This  is  a  stronger  expression  of  the  thought  than 
that  in  7^^  The  unsearchable  nature  of  divine  things  is  similarly 
proclaimed  also  in  Job  ii^-^  and  Rom.  ii^^. — Even  if  the  wise  man 
think  he  is  about  to  know,  he  will  not  be  able  to  fathom  it].  Qohe- 
leth  had  seen,  apparently,  the  inutility  of  many  systems  and  the 
inefficacy  of  many  universal  panaceas. — ^9^  /  gave  my  heart]. 
The  heart,  as  so  often,  is  used  for  the  whole  inner  nature  including 
the  mind. — And  my  heart  saw].  For  the  justification  of  the  text 
on  which  this  translation  rests,  see  critical  notes. — The  righteous 
and  the  wise  and  their  works  are  in  the  hand  of  God].  Qoheleth, 
as  so  often,  recognizes  God's  supreme  sovereignty  over  human 
affairs. — Men  do  not  know  love  or  hate],  probably  God's  love  or 
hate,  i.e.,  tliey  can  never  tell,  from  what  they  do,  whether  God  is 
going  to  treat  them  as  though  he  loved  them  or  hated  them.  The 
occurrences  of  life  accord  so  ill  with  character,  that  whether  God 


158  ECCLESIASTES 

loves  or  hates  an  individual  is  one  of  the  inscrutable  things  men- 
tioned in  the  preceding  vs.,  which  man  cannot  fathom. — All  before 
them  is  vanity].  For  the  text  of  this  rendering,  see  crit.  note  to 
vs.  2.  The  meaning  is,  all  before  men  is  a  blank,  they  can  gain 
no  knowledge  of  God's  attitude  toward  them  or  of  the  future. 

16.  -!rN3]="when,"  cf.  Gn.  12"  iS^s,  etc. — oS  nx  >nnj],  cf.  on  i''. 
— V^y^],  cf.  on  ii3. — Dj  lo],  as  RV.,  Wild.,  Sieg.,  McN.,  etc.,  have  noted, 
begins  a  parenthesis. — njc]  is  the  object  of  the  act.  part.  hn^. — rr>3]  is 
regarded  by  Ha.  as  a  gl.,  because  of  his  metrical  theory. — 17.  "»n"»Nn:]. 

1  introduces  the  apodosis. — DinSxH  nt:7!:],  as  Wild,  notes  this  is  = 
nfy'j  ic'n  and  shows  that  Q.  ascribes  all  activities  to  God.  Ha. 
erases  the  words  as  a  gl. — nixdV]  is  used  in  an  intellectual  sense,  cf.  ch. 
311  729  Job  ii7  and  Je.  25.— ^rs  Sco],  Kn.,  Ew.,  Hit.,  Heil.  and  Dr. 
(hesitatingly)  emend  to  SoJ  following  d.  Del.,  Wr.,  Eur.  and  others 
hold  that  '^D  is  due  to  an  early  correction,  S"^'3  being  parallel  to  the 
Aram,  "i  Snj,  which  occurs  in  Targ.,  Onk.,  Gn.  63.  In  Jonah  i^  we 
find  tSco,  and  i'^  iStri.  Such  compounds  are  late  and  influenced  by 
Aramaic.  Cf.  Ja.  140a  and  Ko.  §§389e  and  284e. — dn  dj]  corresponds 
to  Ph.  DX  £3K,  CIS.  No.  36,  cf.  K6.  §394f. — ~^  "^^n]  applies  to 
thought,  cf.  Ex.  2"  and  2  S.  21I6. — 91.  -n3':'i]  is  taken  differently  by 
different  scholars.  Hit.,  Heil.,  Gins,  and  Zo.  take  it  as  from  ma, 
which  in  the  Mishna  is  used  as  "prove,"  etc.  {cf.  Ja.  197b),  and  re- 
gard it  as  an  inf.  used  instead  of  the  finite  verb,  cf.  i  S.  8^2,  Je.  1710  19^* 

2  Ch.  71^  {cf.  for  constr.  Ko.  §4135).  Del.,  Wr.  and  Wild,  take  it  from 
the  same  root,  but  supply  "TiMn  with  it,  as  n\n  is  used  in  31^  with  nvnV. 
Gr.  and  Ko.  (§4135)  emend  with  H,  ©  and  A  to  -nnSi.  CI,  K  and  &, 
which  are  followed  by  Bick.,  Sieg.,  McN.  and  Ha.,  read  n?  So  ns  ns-i  ">3'^i, 
which  is  probably  right.  This  reading  has  been  adopted  above. — nrN  = 
"that"  as  in  8^2,  cf.  BDB.  83a. — — i?y.],  a.X.  in  BH.  It  is  an  Aramaism, 
cf.  Syr.  '^bada  and  BDB.  714b.  Ha.'s  theory  of  the  book  leads  him  to 
break  this  vs.  into  four  glosses  and  scatter  it  to  different  parts  of  the  work. 
— ^Dr\],  vs.  2,  was  read  S^n  by  (5,  2C,  ^  and  A,  and  attached  to  vs.  i. 
This  is  rightly  followed  by  Dale,  Sieg.  and  McN.,  and  has  been 
adopted  above. 

Q2-6 — xhe  hopelessness  of  humanity's  end. 

92.  Inasmuch  as  to  all  is  one  event,  to  the  righteous  and  to  the  wicked, 
to  the  clean  and  to  the  unclean,  to  the  sacrificer  and  to  him  who  does  not 
sacrifice;  as  is  the  good,  so  is  the  sinner;  he  who  swears  is  as  he  who 
fears  an  oath.  ^.  This  is  an  evil  in  all  that  is  done  under  the  sun,  that 
one  fate  is  to  all,  and  also  the  hearts  of  the  sons  of  men  are  full  of  evil, 
and  madness  is  in  their  hearts  while  they  live,  and  after  it, — to  the  dead ! 
4.  For  whoever  is  joined  to  all  the  living,  there  is  hope  (for  him),  for 


HOPELESSNESS  OF  HUMANITY'S  END     [Ch.O^-s"       i^q 

verily  a  living  dog  is  better  than  a  dead  lion.  ^.  For  the  living  know 
that  they  shall  die,  but  the  dead  know  not  anything;  they  have  no  longer 
a  reward,  for  their  memory  is  forgotten.  «.  Also  their  love  as  well  as 
their  hate  and  their  jealousy  have  already  perished,  and  they  have  again 
no  portion  forever  in  all  that  is  done  under  the  sun. 

2.  Inasmuch  as\  For  justification  of  this  text,  see  critical  note. 
— To  all  is  one  event],  death,  cf.  2'^  3^^  As  Qoheleth  had  no  faith 
in  anything  beyond  death,  this  seemed  to  him  to  reduce  good  and 
bad  to  one  level  regardless  of  moral  distinctions. — To  the  clean  and 
to  the  unclean].  The  words  might  have  either  a  moral  or  ceremonial 
content,  but  as  righteous  and  wicked  have  disposed  of  the  moral 
class,  it  is  probable  that  reference  is  now  made  to  ceremonial  clean- 
ness and  uncleanness. — He  who  swears].  The  analogy  of  the  series, 
in  which  the  bad  character  uniformly  comes  first,  compels  us  to 
take  this  of  profane  swearing  which  was  prohibited  (Ex.  20^,  cf. 
Mt.  5^^),  and  not  with  Plumtre,  of  that  judicial  swearing  which  was 
commended  (Dt.  6'^). — He  who  fears  an  oath],  he  who  observes 
his  oath  by  God  as  in  Is.  651^  Ps.  63". — 3.  TJiis  is  an  evil  in  all]. 
Many  scholars  regard  this  as  equivalent  to  a  superlative,  i.e.,  ''the 
greatest  evil  among  all,"  cf.  Ob.  2  and  La.  i'.  For  details,  see  the 
critical  note.  Whatever  determination  one  may  reach  about  the 
Hebrew  method  of  expressing  the  superlative,  the  writer  surely 
means  to  say  that  the  evil  which  he  is  about  to  mention,  is  of  special 
prominence. — Hearts  of  the  sons  of  men  are  full  of  evil],  full  of  dis- 
content and  unsatisfied  longing. — Madness  is  in  their  hearts].  Life, 
according  to  Qoheleth,  consists  of  vain  strivings,  fond  hopes  and 
wild  desires,  cf.  i'^  2^\ — To  the  dead].  The  broken  construction 
gives  dramatic  vividness  to  Qoheleth's  gloomy  outlook. — 4.  Who- 
ever is  joined  to  all  the  living].  The  peculiar  introduction  of  "all " 
gives  emphasis  to  Qoheleth's  lack  of  belief  in  a  future  life. — There 
is  hope  from  him],  hope  that  he  may  eat  and  drink  and  get  some 
enjoyment  out  of  life,  cf.  2^^  5'^ — A  living  dog].  The  dog  is  an 
object  of  contempt  in  the  East,  see  i  S.  24^^  2  S.  3*  169  Mt.  1526 
Rev.  22'^ — A  dead  lion].  The  lion  was  a  symbol  of  regal  power, 
and  is  used  metaphorically  of  Jacob  (Gn.  49**)  and  of  God  (Job 
ioi«  Is.  38''  La.  31"  and  Ho.  13^).  Death  reduces  the  kingly  Hon 
to  a  level  below  that  of  the  living  dog,  because  it  reduces  him  to  a 


l6o  ECCLESIASTES 

State  of  nothingness. — 5.  For  the  living  know  that  they  shall  die]. 
The  clause  presents  a  reason  for  the  statement  of  the  preceding 
verse,  but  the  reason  betrays  a  strange  mood  of  pessimism. ^r/^e 
dead  know  not  anything].  To  have  power  to  perceive  that  one 
must  die  is  to  be  greater  than  the  dead,  who  have  no  knowledge. 
Qoheleth's  eschatology  is  that  of  Ps.  88'"  and  115'^ — For  their 
memory  is  forgotten].  That  a  dead  man  would  be  forgotten  seems 
to  have  been  taken  for  granted  by  the  Hebrews,  cf.  Ps.  9^  31'^  41*. 
This  fact  constitutes  for  Qoheleth  one  of  the  great  tragedies  of 
life,  cf.  v^  2'«.  This  verse  is  quoted  and  opposed  in  Wisd.  2*. — 
6.  Their  love  as  well  as  their  hate  and  their  jealousy  have  already 
perished].  The  strongest  passions  are  hushed  in  the  calm  of  death. 
— N'o  portion  forever  .  .  .  under  the  sun].  The  dead  are  denied 
participation  in  the  only  world  of  which  Qoheleth  knows,  this  to 
his  mind  makes  the  pathos  of  death  a  tragedy. 

92.  Sdh].  See  on  vs.  i.  nu'ND],  01,  S  and  H  apparently  read  nc'Na  (cf. 
McN.  149).  This  is  rightly  followed  by  Zap.  and  McN.,  and  has  been 
adopted  above. — 3VjS]  is  a  supernumerary  in  the  text.  Gins,  held  that 
it  was  introduced  before  '\)^'^^  and  XuioS  to  show  that  these  referred  to 
moral,  not  ceremonial,  qualities;  it  not  only  makes  awkward  Heb.,  but  the 
moral  qualities  have  been  included  in  the  preceding  pair.  ^,  B  and  A 
added  >">'?  to  make  another  balanced  pair,  but  01  omits  iitaS  altogether,  and 
is  rightly  followed  by  Bick.,  Wild,  and  Sieg.  (S  has  apparently  preserved 
many  pre-Aqiban  readings  in  this  passage,  and  this  one  has  been  adopted 

above. — n't* ^"i"^^],  for   rhetorical  effect  the  structure   of  the  last 

,  two  pairs  is  varied. — 3.  ^D2  j;n].  Kn.,  Hit.,  Gins.,  Ew.  and  Del.  take  this 
as  a  way  of  expressing  the  superlative,  comparing  Jos.  141^  Ju.  6'^  and 
Ct.  i^.  Wr.  points  out,  however,  that  in  these  cases  the  adj.  is  accom- 
panied by  the  article,  and  that  this  is  really  parallel  to  Ob.  2  and  La.  i', 
where  the  adjs.  do  not  have  the  art.,  and  where  it  is  doubtful  whether 
the  writers  intended  to  express  a  superlative  or  not. — ^^^<  mpr],  cf. 
on  2"  and  92. — nSc]  may,  as  Del.  and  Wr.  note,  be  either  an  adj.  or  a 
verb,  but  is  probably  a  verb.  Everywhere,  except  in  Je.  6",  it  takes  an 
ace.  of  material  as  here,  cf.  Dt.  611  ;^;^^^  34^. — .iiSSni],  cf.  on  i".  Perhaps 
to  be  pointed  niSSin. — innN],  0^  read  onnnx,  using  the  pi.  suf.  to  refer 
to  D"'"'N.  S  read  annns.  The  suffix  of  MT.  need  not,  however,  be 
altered. — O-TiD  S^'],  Gins,  insists  that  in  translation  O'^oSn  must  be  added, 
but  it  is  better  with  McN.  to  regard  the  expression  as  an  abbreviat&i^ 
and  forceful  exclamation. — 4.  ~\C'i<  ^c]  is,  as  Del.  observed,  =  "  whoever." 
Cf.  Ex.  32^3  2  S.  20^1.      Ko.    (§39oe)    regards   it   as="when." — "^n?"! 


PHILOSOPHY  OF  LIFE     [Ch.  Q'-IO^  i6i 

does  not  fit  the  context.  The  Qr.,  20  MSS.  and  (g,  B,  B,  01,  read  n^n^, 
which  should  undoubtedly  be  adopted  into  the  text,  as  has  been  done 
above. — vn'32],  an  Ji-  formation  from  n^2,  occurring  elsewhere  in 
BH.  only  in  2  K.  i8i9=Is.  36^  but  found  also  in  the  Mishna  and  Talmud, 
cf.  Ja.,  156b.— 3'?o^],  ^  may  be  taken  as  the  prep,  standing  before  the 
casus  pendens  (Ko.  §27ib),  or  as  an  emphatic  particle  =  Ar.  "la," 
As.  "lu"  (cf.  Haupt,  Johns  Hopkins  Circular,  XIII.  107;  Budde,  ZAIV., 
IX,  156;  Ges.J^  §1436  and  Ko.  §35 id).  The  analogies  are  very  evenly 
balanced,  but  seem  to  me  slighdy  to  preponderate  in  favor  of  the  latter 

view. — 5.  "^Dr]  forms  a  paronomasia  with  -\2:. — 6.  dj D) d,i],  cf. 

Is.  488. —  -\3d]="  already,"  cf.  on  ii". 

J7-16. — A  restatement  of  Qoheleth's  philosophy  of  life. 

97.  Come  eat  thy  bread  with  joy  and  drink  thy  wine  with  a  glad  heart, 
for  already  God  has  accepted  thy  works.  ^.  At  all  times  let  thy  garments 
be  white,  and  let  not  oil  be  lacking  for  thy  head.  ^.  Enjoy  life  with  a 
woman  whom  thou  lovest  all  the  days  of  thy  vain  life  which  he  gives 
thee  under  the  sun,  for  it  is  thy  lot  in  life  and  in  thy  toil  which  thou  toilesi 
under  the  sun.  10.  All  that  thy  hand  finds  to  do,  do  with  thy  might,  for 
there  is  no  work  nor  reckoning,  nor  knowledge  nor  wisdom  in  She'ol 
whither  thou  art  going.  ".  And  again  I  saw  under  the  sun,  that  the 
race  is  not  to  the  swift,  nor  the  battle  to  the  valiant;  also  there  is  no  bread 
for  the  wise  as  well  as  no  wealth  for  the  intelligent  and  no  favor  for  those 
who  have  knowledge;  for  time  and  chance  shall  happen  to  them  all. 
12.  For  even  man  knows  not  his  time;  like  fish  which  are  caught  in  an 
evil  net,  or  like  birds  taken  in  a  snare, — like  them  are  the  sons  of  men 
taken  at  an  evil  time,  when  it  falls  upon  them  suddenly.  ^K  Also  this 
I  have  seen  as  wise  under  the  sun  and  it  appeared  great  unto  rne.  ",  There 
was  a  small  city  and  few  men  in  it,  and  there  came  against  it  a  great  king 
and  surrounded  it  and  built  siege- works  against  it.  ^\  And  one  found 
in  it  a  poor,  wise  man  and  he  delivered  the  city  by  his  wisdom,  but  no 
man  remembered  that  poor  man.  le.  And  I  said  wisdom  is  better  than 
might,  but  the  wisdom  of  the  poor  man  is  despised  and  his  words  are 
not  heard. 

1^  The  words  of  the  wise  heard  in  quiet  (are  better)  than  the  cry  of  a 
prince  among  fools. 

18.  Wisdom  is  better  than  implements  of  war,  but  one  sinner  greatly 
destroys  good. 

IQi.  Dead  flies  corrupt  the  perfumer's  ointment ; 

More  valued  is  a  little  wisdom  than  the  great  glory  of  folly. 
V,  2_    The  heart  of  a  wise  man  is  for  his  right  hand, 

But  the  heart  of  a  fool  is  for  his  left. 

'.  Also  when  a  fool  walks  in  the  way  his  heart  is  lacking  and  he  says 
of  every  one,  he  is  a  fool. 


i62  ECCLESIASTES 

9^ .  Come  eat  thy  bread  with  joy].  The  sudden  transition  leads 
Siegfried  to  find  the  hand  of  another  author  here.  That,  how- 
ever, seems  unnecessary.  Qoheleth,  hke  other  men,  could  come 
under  the  influence  of  various  moods  or  various  systems  of  thought. 
Each  could  possess  him  in  turn  without  preventing  the  return  of 
the  other.  Life  has  no  outlook,  its  problems  are  insoluble,  death 
will  end  all,  but  enjoy  sensation  and  the  sunshine  while  it  lasts, 
this  is  his  philosophy,  cf.  2^^  y^-  ^-  518  S'^.  When  a  modern  man 
realizes  how  many  different  conceptions  and  moods  he  can 
entertain,  he  finds  fewer  authors  in  a  book  like  Qoheleth. — Bread 
.  .  .  and  wine].  These  are  often  taken  as  the  means  of  subsistence 
or  of  hospitality,  cf.  Gn.  14^8  2728  Dt.  ^^^^  i  S.  162"  25^8  Neh.  5* 
La.  2 '2  Tobit  41^-'^ — Already  God  has  accepted  thy  works].  The 
thought  apparently  is,  God,  by  the  constitution  of  the  world,  has 
left  this  as  the  only  source  of  enjoyment,  and  this  is  evidence  that 
such  a  course  is  acceptable  to  Him.  As  Hubert  Grimme  pointed 
out  {Orient.  Liter atiirzeitung,  VIH,  col.  4;^2ff.),  vvs.  7-9  are  strik- 
ingly paralleled  in  a  fragment  of  the  Gilgamesh  epic,  published  by 
Meissner  in  the  Mitteilungen  der  vorderasiatischen  Gesellscha/tj 
1902,  Heft  I.     The  passage  (col.  IH,  3^.)  reads: 

Since  the  gods  created  man, 

Death  they  ordained  for  man, 

Life  in  their  hands  they  hold, 

Thou,  O  Gilgamesh,  fill  indeed  thy  belly, 

Day  and  night  be  thou  joyful, 

Daily  ordain  gladness. 

Day  and  night  rage  and  make  merry. 

Let  thy  garments  be  bright. 

Thy  head  purify,  wash  with  water; 

Desire  thy  children,  which  thy  hand  possesses, 

A  wife  enjoy  in  thy  bosom. 

Peaceably  thy  work  (?).... 

The  argument  here  is  so  closely  parallel  to  that  of  Qoheleth  that 
one  can  scarcely  doubt  but  that  he  was  influenced  by  the  passage. 
The  Gilgamesh  epic  can  have  been  influenced  neither  by  Stoic 
nor  Greek  thought.  This  passage  shows  that  the  combination  of 
pessimism  and  brightness  which  we  find  in  Qoheleth,  is  thoroughly 
Semitic,  and,  to  the  Semitic  mind,  congruous.  See  further  above, 
Introduction,  §6  (2). 


PHILOSOPHY  OF  LIFE     [Ch.9-10^  .      163 

8.  Let  thy  garments  he  white].  ''White"  corresponds  to 
"bright " of  the  Babylonian  epic.  Bright  colors  and  white  were  the 
colors  for  the  clothing  of  courts,  cf.  Est.  8'%  and  of  festivals  (see 
the  Gilgamesh  fragment  above).  Horace  {Sat.  II,  2^9-61)  shows 
that  white  garments  were  also  in  Rome  the  attire  for  enjoyment : 

Ille  repotia,  natales,  aliosve  dierum 
Festos  albatus  celebret. 
(Clothed  in  white  he  celebrates  banquets, 
Birthdays  or  any  other  festal  days.) 

The  Talmud  {Sabbath  114a)  lays  a  similar  stress  on  white  garments. 
— Oil . .  .for  thy  head].  This  takes  the  place  of  "thy  head  purify" 
in  the  Babylonian  epic.  Among  the  Hebrews  oil  was  also  a  symbol 
of  joy,  cf.  Ps.  2y  45^  104'^  Pr.  279  Am.  6k  The  verse  is  quoted 
and  opposed  in  Wisd.  2''-^. — 9.  Enjoy  life  with  a  woman  whom  thou 
lovest].  Interpreters  have  noticed  the  absence  of  the  definite 
article  before  "woman"  and  have  drawn  various  inferences  from 
it.  Gins,  saw  in  it  a  command  to  embrace  whatever  woman 
pleased  one,  and  so  gain  the  "delights  of  the  sons  of  men"  alluded 
to  in  2» — a  view  which  Plumtre  opposes.  The  analogy  of  the 
Babylonian,  which  seems  to  be  freely  reproduced  here,  tends  to 
confirm  Ginsburg's  view  (see  criti  note).  Moreover,  the  passage 
was  quoted  and  opposed  in  Wisd.  2  %  where  it  seems  to  have  been 
understood  of  voluptuousness  {cf.  Wisd.  y^  4^).  Viewed  thus,  the 
passage  presents  no  contradiction  of  ch.  726-28^ — ji  i^  ij^y  Iq^^  ^j^ 
5' 8  8'5.  The  author  of  Wisdom  was,  however,  a  fierce  opponent 
of  Qoheleth  (see  above,  Introd.  §12),  and  possibly  found  in  his 
words  a  more  sinister  meaning  than  Qoheleth  intended. — 10.  All 
that  thy  hand  finds  to  do].  This  context  refers  to  methods  of  en- 
joyment.— Do  with  thy  might],  earnestly,  or  to  the  extent  of  thy 
ability,  cf.  Gn.  31^ — For  there  is  no  work  .  .  .  in  Sheol],  cf.  Is. 
149-11  Ez.  3 2' 8-32,  and  the  Babylonian  poem  of  "Ishtar's  Descent 
to  the  Underworld."     This  last  describes  it  as: 

A  place  where  dust  is  their  food,  their  sustenance,  clay, 
Light  they  do  not  see,  in  darkness  they  dwell, 
Its  clothing,  like  birds",  is  a  covering  of  wings; 
Over  door  and  bolt  dust  is  sprea^d. 

For  the  full  poem,  see  Babylonian  and  Assyr.  Lit.,  Aldine  ed.,  p. 
468^.,  or  KB.,  VI,  p.  80^.,  or  Dhorme,  Choix  de  textes  religieuXf 


1 64  ECCLESIASTES 

p.  326^. — 11.  Again  I  sau].  This  introduces  a  new  phase  of  the 
subject.  In  vs.  i  Qoheleth  declared  that  righteous  and  wise  are 
subject  to  the  same  fate  as  the  wicked.  He  has  proved  it  for  the 
righteous,  and  now  turns  to  take  it  up  for  the  wise. — Under  the 
sun\  in  this  writer  a  frequent  synonym  of  "in  this  world." — The 
race  is  not  to  the  swift\.  Here  are  examples  of  the  fact  that  the  re- 
■  wards  of  this  Hfe  are  not  given  in  accordance  with  abihty  or  merit. 
Plumtre  beheves  that  this  illustration  indicates  a  late  date,  when 
Greek  exercises  had  been  introduced  into  Jerusalem.  This  was 
done  in  the  reign  of  Antiochus  Epiphanes,  174-164  B.C.  (r/. 
I  Mac.  i»^  2  Mac.  4'-'0-  He  forgets,  however,  that  there  were 
occasions  in  every  age  for  competition  in  running,  cf.  2  S.  18' »^. 
— No  bread  for  the  wise\  Three  terms  are  used  to  describe  intel- 
lectual power,  "wise,"  "intelligent,"  and  "those  who  have  knowl- 
edge."— Time\,  a  reference  to  3^-8.  The  seasons  appointed  by 
God  roll  over  humanity  relentlessly,  among  them  the  time  of  death. 
— Chance]  is  here  "evil  chance"  or  "misfortune."  It  is  not  quite 
the  thought  of  2'^-  ^^  3'^  and  9^,  for  a  different  Hebrew  word  is  used 
(see  crit.  note),  but  it  borders  closely  upon  it. — 12.  Knows  not  his 
time].  "Time"  is  here  ambiguous,  it  may  mean  the  time  of  mis- 
fortune or  the  time  of  death.  For  similar  uses,  see  Ct.  2^2  Ez.  30^. 
The  similes  of  fish  caught  in  a  net  and  birds  taken  in  a  snare  make 
it  probable  that  the  time  of. death  is  meant. — 13.  /  saw  as  wise]. 
"I  noted  as  an  instance  of  wisdom."  "Wisdom"  =" wise  act," 
just  as  "vanity  "=" vain  pursuit." 

14.  A  small  city  and  a  few  men  in  it,  and  there  came  against  it  a 
great  king].  Various  conjectures  have  been  made  concerning  this 
city.  Hit.  thought  the  siege  of  Dor  by  Antiochus  III  in  218  B.C. 
(Polybius,  V,  66)  was  meant;  PL,  the  siege  of  Dor  by  Antiochus 
VII  (Sidetes),  (Jos.  Ant.  xiii,  72);  Wr.,  the  siege  of  Abel-Beth- 
Maacah  (2  S.  20'*-");  and  Ha.,  the  siege  of  Beth-sura  by  Antiochus  V 
(i  Mac.  6"  2  Mac.  ly).  Ewald  thought  reference  was  made  to 
Athens  and  Themistocles,  and  Friedlander  to  the  siege  of  Syra- 
cuse by  the  Romans  in  212  B.C.  There  is  no  certainty  that  any 
of  these  conjectures  is  right,  and  the  conjectures  of  PI.  and  Ha.  are 
ruled  out  by  the  dates,  and  that  of  Friedlander  by  the  fact  that 
Syracuse  was  taken ;  but  more  can  be  said  in  favor  of  Abel-Beth- 


PHILOSOPHY  OF  LIFE     [Ch.  Q^-IO^  165 

Maacah  than  of  any  of  the  others,  for  we  do  not  know  why  the 
other  sieges  were  raised,  but  Abel-Beth-Maacah  was  reheved  be- 
cause of  the  action  of  a  wise  woman.  Wr.  beHeves  the  "wise 
woman"  was  changed  to  "poor  man,"  because  it  fitted  better  the 
sentiment  of  vs.  11. — Siege-works].  For  the  reasons  of  this  rendering, 
see  critical  note. — 15.  One  found  in  it],ior  "there  was  found  in  it." 
— He  delivered  the  city  by  his  wisdom].  PL  admits  that  the  parallel 
to  Abel-Beth-Maacah  (2  S.  20)  is  particularly  strong,  but  the 
"poor  wise  man"  instead  of  the  "wise  woman "  strangely  seems  to 
him  an  insuperable  objection  to  the  identification. — No  man  re- 
membered that  poor  man].  The  popular  fancy  is  fickle,  and  public 
servants,  then  as  now,  were  often  unrewarded. — 16.  The  wisdom  of 
the  poor  man  is  despised  and  his  words  are  not  heard].  McN.  holds 
that  this  contradicts  vs.  15  if  that  is  rendered  as  we  have  trans- 
lated it,  and  consequently  takes  the  preceding  vs.  to  mean  "he 
would  have  delivered  the  city  by  his  wisdom."  Such  a  view  at- 
tributes to  Qoheleth  too  exact  a  use  of  language.  In  vs.  15  he 
was  describing  some  actual,  though  to  us  unknown,  incident;  here 
he  is  stating  the  ordinary  attitude  of  the  world  toward  words  of 
wisdom.  See  also  critical  note.  The  writer  has  established  his 
assertion  (9^)  that  the  wise  as  well  as  the  righteous  meet  an  un- 
worthy fate. 

9^^-10^  are  interpolations  of  the  Hokma  glossator,  suggested 
by  the  "wise  man"  of  the  closing  incident  of  the  section. 
17.  The  verse  is,  as  Sieg.,  Ha.  and  McN.  have  perceived,  clearly  a 
proverb. — Words  of  the  wise  heard  in  quiet  are  better  than  the  cry  of 
a  prince  among  fools], — a  strong  contrast  between  the  quiet  strength 
of  wisdom  and  the  loud  pretense  of  sham.  PL  is  reminded  of  the 
English  proverb, "  Great  cry  and  little  wool." — 18.  Wisdom  is  better 
than  implements  of  war], — a  proverb  suggested  by  the  anecdote 
with  which  the  preceding  section  closed. — One  sinner  greatly  de- 
stroys good].  "Sinner"  comes  from  a  root  which  means  "to 
miss"  or  "go  wrong,"  and  probably  refers  here  to  intellectual  or 
moral  slips.  It  is  the  contrary  of  the  Hebrew  ideal  of  "wisdom." 
Perhaps  Qoheleth  thought  of  some  incident  Hke  that  of  Achan 
in  Jos.  7.  Many  illustrations  of  the  principle  will  readily  occur 
to  any  one.     Often  the  brilliant  plans  of  a  leader,  faithfully  fol- 


1 66  ECCLESIASTES 

lowed  by  many,  have  been  brought  to  nothing  by  the  stupid  in- 
competence of  one  man. — 10'.  Dead  Jiies  corrupt  the  perfumer^ s 
ointment\  FHes  in  the  East  are  a  great  pest,  they  penetrate  every- 
where. Entangled  in  oil,  they  would  of  course  die,  and  decaying 
would  spoil  the  ointment's  odor.  The  proverb  continues  the  idea 
of  the  preceding  utterance. — More  valued  is  a  little  wisdom]. 
The  connection  of  this  with  the  preceding  aphorism  is  not  very 
obvious.  If  the  reading  adopted  is  right,  a  contrast  with  the 
first  part  of  the  verse  is  presented.  Perhaps,  however,  the  text  is 
corrupt;  see  critical  note.  The  verse  is  to  be  regarded  with  Sieg. 
and  McN.  as  from  the  hand  of  the  Hokma  glossator.  2.  The 
verse  is  another  proverb  introduced  as  a  gloss. — The  heart  of  a 
wise  man].,  "Heart"  is  used  for  ''inteUigence,"  "moral  percep- 
tion" or  ^'will."  Perhaps  it  includes  all  three. — Is  for  his. right 
hand],  i.e.,  tends  toward  the  right  or  fortunate  direction  or  issue. 
"Right  hand"  has  this  moral  meaning  in  the  Talmud.  See  crit- 
ical note. — Heart  of  a  fool  is  for  his  left],  i.e.,  tends  in  the  wrong 
direction. — 3.  When  a  fool  walks  in  the  way],  i.e.,  when  he  goes 
out  for  a  walk. — His  heart  is  lacking],  i.e.,  his  sound  intelligence 
or  right  judgment, — He  says  of  everyone,  he  is  a  fool].  In  his 
jaundiced  view  all  other  men  are  wrong. 

7.  3itJ3^]  ="glad  heart,"  cf..  Est.  s^  and  cf.   2^  3tO>,  ch.  7'  i  K.  21^. 
It  is  the  opposite  of  >n  3S,  Pr.  2623.     It  is  probable,  from  the  contrast 
with  this  last  expression,  .that  there  is  an  element  of  "good  conscience" 
.    in  the  phrase. 

9.  D^^n  nN-\]=  "enjoy  life,"  cf.  2K  D''^n  is  left  indefinite  as  in  Ps. 
34I'. — nanx  "ydn  T^^dn]  seems  like  a  translation  of  the  Bab.  mar-hi-tum, 
"wife,"  perhaps  from  rlhu,  "to  love"  {cf.  MA.  588a).  The  line  of 
the  Babylonian  epic  runs:  mar-hi-tum  li-ih-ta-ad-da-am  i-na  su-ni-ka, 
"A  wife  enjoy  in  thy  loins," — which  favors  Ginsburg's  understanding  of 
the  passage.  It  does  not  indicate  that  Qoh.  was  more  sensual  than  other 
Semites  of  antiquity,  that  with  such  frankness  he  alludes  to  such  things. 
— "^C'n],  after  i'y:^^,  probably  refers  to  "'D>  as  its  antecedent,  as  in  5"  and 
815.  If,  as  some  have  supposed,  it  refers  back  to  nrx,  Gn.  2"  was  in  the 
writer's  mind.  That  is  not  so  probable. — "iSan  ^D""  h^],  where  it  oc- 
curs the  second  time,  is  omitted  by  S>,  and  is  with  Eur.,  Sieg.,  McN.  and 
Ha.  to  be  regarded  as  an  accidental  gloss. — Nin  id].  Oriental  MSS. 
read  N-in  ">j,  which  might  make  it  refer  back  to  nc*N.  Cf.  on  the  point 
Kq.  §35ob.— 10.    V"],  (f-  on  its  use,  Ju.  933  i  S.  lo^  258.— in^^]  (6  read 


PHILOSOPHY  OF  LIFE     [Ch.  OMO^  167 

"inD^,  but  the  reading  is  not  ao  good.  "inj3  is  best  construed  with 
nc*y,  contrary  to  the  Massoretic  accents. — p^rn],  cj.  on  725. — p3::'ni 
nDDm  nym]  is  for  metrical  reasons  regarded  by  Zap.  as  a  gloss. — '?in-^o], 
on  its  use  as  a  proper  name,  cf.  Ko.  §293c. — DC^  ^S^  nnN  -ic'n]  Ha.  re- 
gards as  gl.,  for  metrical  reasons.  On  the  vs.  as  a  whole,  cf.  Heb.  text 
of  Ben  Sira  i^^  '2. — 11.  ■"i><")T  ^nju],  a  Heb.  idiom  for  "again  I  saw,"  cf. 
on  41  and  also  Ko.  §369r. — nsTi]  is  an  inf.  absol.  used  instead  of  the. 
finite  verb,  cf.  Ko.  §2i8b.  So  most  interpreters.  Sieg.  would  emend 
on  the  analogy  of  4'  to  hn-jx). — ^yy^\  this  masc.  form  is  used  only 
here.  The  usual  form  is  r\-iv\'0,  cf.  2  S.  iS^?  Je.  S^  2217.  Wr.  thought 
that  the  masc.  form  might  indicate  a  late  date,  but  the  fem.  form  is 
used  in  NH.  (see  Ja.  839). — ^j;j?]=" accident,"  occurs  in  BH.  only 
here  and  in  i  K.  s'*,  though  found  in  NH.  {cf.  Ja.  1135).  It  may  rep- 
resent either  a  good  or  bad  occurrence.  In  i  K.  5'8,  >'">  is  added  to  it 
to  express  the  meaning  "  misfortune."  Here  it  has  that  meaning  without 
V"<.  iT^P']  is  masc.  to  agree  with  yjs. — 12.  Dic-pi  ]  is  generally  taken- 
as  a  Pual  part.,  the  d  being  omitted,  and  the  vowel  lengthened  to  com- 
pensate the  absence  of  the  doubled  consonant  {cf.  Ges.'^-  §52s  and 
Ko.,  Vol.  I,  p.  408).  Other  examples  are  "';«  Ex.  32,  nSv  Ju.  138,  and 
ni?'7  2  K.  2'".  Dr.  suggests  o^c-pu  as  the  original  reading. — Sidpu'd] 
=  '7isn">rND.  n>n  ."nisc].  Sieg.  regards  n;n  as  a  dittograph  from  the 
succeeding  nyn.  Ha.  regards  the  same  n;;-\,  as  well  as  o  at  the  be- 
ginning of  the  verse  and  DXPfl  at  the  end,  as  glosses,  which  mar  the 
metrical  form  of  the  vs.,  but  see  above,  Introd.  §9.  With  reference  to 
the  vs.  Rabbi  Aqiba  remarks  {Ahoth,  3»5),  Sy  •r\^\'\Q  nmxci  p3-iy3  |inj  Sdh 
:D''''nn  So,  i.e.,  "All  is  given  on  pledge,  and  a  net  is  spread  over  all  the  liv- 
ing."— 13.  nr],  fem.  Put  in  the  same  gender  as  HDDn,  cf.  $^^. — rhy-<,i 
-"Ss  Nvn],  cf.  ^^n'^vh  nSvij  Jon.  3^,  and  Dnin^S  ^h^'^^  Est.  10'.  S 
correctly  renders  fxeydXr}  Sok€?  fxol. — 14.  njtop  n"-)?],  v^  or  nrrin  must  be 
supplied  in  thought. — "'nj  ^SD].  Del.  thinks  this  a  reference  to  the 
king  of  Persia.  The  phraseology  is  that  used  of  Persian  kings,  but  it 
lasted  on  into  the  Greek  period.  It  might  be  used  by  the  writer  to  desig- 
nate king  David  or  any  other  powerful  monarch. — 32d]  mean's  "sur- 
round" as  in  2  K.  6^^  not  "walk  around"  as  in  Jos.  6*. — omxc]  evi- 
dently means  "siege- works,"  a  meaning  which  it  has  nowhere  else  in 
BH.  Two  MSS.  read  omxc,  and  this  reading  is  supported  by  (i>,  ^, 
S,  B,  A.  This  reading  we  adopt  with  Winck.,  Dr.  and  McN.— 15.  NX?:] 
is  here  impersonal,  so  Kn.,  Hit.,  Heil.,  Wild.,  and  Sieg.,  cf.  also  Ko. 
§3 23c.  Wr.'s  contention  that  Snj  iSd  of  the  preceding  vs.  must  be 
the  subject,  does  not  commend  itself.  It  is  not  grammatically  necessary, 
and  does  not  give  good  sense. — ?3D?^],  see  on  413.  Dale's  contention 
that  it  means  a  wage-worker  and  not  a  beggar  does  not  seem  well 
founded,  for  it  occurs  in  BH.  only  here,  in  the  fol.  vs.  and  in  41*,  but  often 
in  Aram.,  and  in  the  Sin.  Syr.  of  Lk.  i6^°  is  used  of  Lazarus. — Nin-^Sci], 


1 68  ECCLESIASTES 

as  Del.  observes,  -  of  the  Piel  reverts  to  its  original  ^  on  account  of  the 
following  Maqqef.  Another  instance  occurs  in  i2^  Del.  also  notes 
that  in  the  earlier  language  this  would  have  been — lOSp;:.  McN, 
would  render  this  "would  deliver"  on  the  analogy  of  Ex.  q's  and  i  S. 
i3'3,  taking  the  clause  as  an  apodosis  with  protasis  suppressed.  The 
contradiction  which  seems  to  him  to  render  this  necessary,  does  not 
seem  to  me  to  exist.  See  above. — oin],  as  Del.  says,  would  in  the  older 
language  have  been  C'"'N,  Perhaps  it  is  used  here  because  c*''N  im- 
mediately precedes,  but  in  7^"  we  find  D^n,  Zap.,  for  metrical  reasons, 
would  follow  H  and  supply  nnx  after  din.— 16.  nvir^]  and  o^ycc-j] 
are  participles  of  continuous  or  customary  action,  cf.  Da.  §97,  rem.  i. 
Ha.  regards — hdvj  '•js]  and  all  that  comes  after  n-ioj]  as  glosses.  On 
the  sentiment,  cf.  BS.  (Heb.)  1322=^. 

17.  nnjj],  not  ("heard)  in  wisdom,"  but  ("uttered)  in  wisdom,"  the 
reference  being  to  the  speaker,  so  Wr.  and  Wild. — a-'i'Drj]  is  erased 
by  Bick.,  who  renders: 

Dcr  Weisen  Wort  ist  ruhig; 
Die  Thoren  iiberschrei'n  es. 

This  is  arbitrary.  MT.  is  supported  by  all  the  versions. — "^P^Jii:]. 
□ov.o  is  understood  before  JO  as  in  4'^,  cf.  Ges.^-  §i33b  and  Ko. 
§3o8c. — D^'?'Djj '?whr.]="an  arch  fool,"  wrongly  considered  by  some 
a  Grajcism.  Cf.  2  S.  23'  Job  4i-«  and  Pr.  303". — 18.  3-ip],  in  the  older 
language,  would  have  been  ncn*?::.  The  word  occurs  in  Zc.  14^  Ps.  55" 
6831  ^8^  1441  Job  3823.  It  is  found  in  Aram.,  Dn.  7"  and  frequently 
in  the  Talmud,  cf.  Ja.  141 1.  Cf.  also  the  Syr.  stem  and  As.  qarabu, 
all  with  the  same  meaning.  The  substitution  of  3"\|">  for  ncnSn  was 
probably  due  to  Aramaic  influence. — x'jin]  is  pointed  like  a  "n'?  stem, 
as  in  other  parts  of  Q.  0  read  N"Jn,  which  better  corresponds  to  noDn. 
This  reading  is  favored  by  Kn.,  Del.,  Sieg.,  Winck.  and  Dr. — '"^?^'?], 
used  adverbially,  cf.  Ko.  §3i8e.  Ha.  regards — i"ir»  ""Sod  neon]  as  a 
genuine  phrase  of  Q.,  and  all  the  rest  of  the  verse  as  a  gloss.  This  is 
arbitrary,  and  spoils  a  good  proverb. — 1.  niD  "'3or]  is  taken  by  (&  (un- 
less that  is  corrupt,  as  McN.  thinks)  and  by  Del.  and  Wr.  as=  "death 
bringing"  or  "poisonous  flies."  The  last  claims  "dead  flies"  would 
be  D-'Pn  Donr.  niD  •'S:3n  in  Ps.  18*  1163  shows  by  analogy  that  this 
can  ="  dead  flies,"  which  suits  the  context  much  better, — r"'N:i>],  a 
sing,  with  a  pi.  subject  has  been  explained  in  various  ways.  AE.,  whom 
Gins,  and  Del.  follow,  held  that  the  vb.  was  sing,  because  Qoheleth 
thought  of  each  fly.  Winck.,  McN.  and  Dr.  emend  to  Vu'."»N2"',  while 
Ko.  (§349g)  holds  that  the  sing.  niD  makes  the  idea  sing.  Each  of 
these  solutions  is  possible.  It  is  also  possible  that  Qoheleth  was  careless 
and  wrote  bad  grammar. — >0"']  is  omitted  by  (5,  &,  2,  H,  and  should, 
as  McN.  and  Dr.  have  seen,  be  erased. — npn],  on  the  meaning,  cf. 
Ex.    30^   37".     Beginning   with — "ip^],    the   text   is   probably   corrupt. 


ATTITUDE  TOWARD  RULERS     [Ch.  10^-"  169 

(^  suggests  that  the  original  reading  was  3-^  Pi'^jD  nu3?3  nn^n  t:;JD  '\p\ 
This  was  transformed  in  ^  into  id';d  di'^dd  3-1  ni3DDi  nDsnn  '^p\ 
H  read  the  same  except  that  it  omitted  21,  while  MT.  went  a  step 
further  and  omitted  1.  The  original  reading  of  (B  presented  an  antithe- 
sis to  the  first  half  of  the  verse,  the  Rabbinic  revisers  present  in  B,  "H 
and  MT.  a  thought  in  harmony  with  the  first  half  verse.  {Cf.  McN., 
p.  ISO  ff.,  who  has  worked  this  out). — 2.  3"?]  was  taken  by  Mich,  in  an 
anatomical  sense.  He  held  the  verse  to  mean  that  wisdom  is  as  rare 
as  a  man  with  the  heart  on  the  right  side  of  the  body.  It  is  better  with 
Del.  to  take  aS=  "thought"  or  "will"  {cf.  ch.  f  and  Ho.  4").— l'?:  ] 
is  taken  by  Del.,  Wr.  and  Wild,  correctly  to  have  a  moral  significance 
kindred  to  that  in  the  Talmud,  where  JC""  is  used  as  a  vb.,  which  in 
some  forms  means  "to  do  the  right  thing,"  cf.  Ja.  580b.  There  is  no 
need  with  PL  to  call  in  Greek  influence  to  explain  the  figure. — ^Ncr] 
is  similarly  used  with  a  moral  significance  =  "errors."  Cf.  Ja.  1591b 
for  kindred  Talmudic  usage. — 3.  ^S^  SrDr3  ^m^  on]  is  inverted  for 
emphasis  from  I'^vi  ■^-^^2  VrD.:*o  dji,  cf.  T)^^. — fr^]  is  rightly  taken 
by  Kn.,  Hit.,  Gins.,  McN.,  etc.,  in  the  literal  sense="when  the  fool 
takes  a  walk."  Wr.,  with  less  probability,  takes  it  to  mean  "the  com- 
mon path  of  life." — -c*3]="\w*N3,  a  temporal  particle,  cf.  8^  and  Ko. 
§387f. — "^Dn]  is  a  verb  (so  Del.,  Wr.,  McN.),  and  not  an  adj.  (Gins.). 
It  occurs  with  :3'^  eleven  times  outside  of  this  passage,  cf.  Pr.  6"  7^ 
— "icn]  is  taken  by  Del.  and  No.  to  mean  "he  (the  fool)  says  to  every 
one  by  his  actions  that  he  is  a  fool."  This  gives  to  "iCN  an  unusual 
meaning.-  This  renders — ^3^']  "to  every  one."  It  is  better  with  McN. 
to  take  VdV='" concerning  every  one,"  and  so  give  to  icn  its  usual 
meaning. — S-id],  a  noun,  not  an  adj. 

10'  20. — Advice  concerning  one's  attitude  toward,  rulers.    (Largely 
interpolated.)     The  genuine  portions  are  lo^'-  "b.  ie.  n  and  20. 

10^.  If  the  anger  of  the  ruler  rise  against  thee,  do  not  leave  thy  place, 
for  soothing  pacifies  great  sins.  ^.  There  is  an  evil  that  I  have  seen  under 
the  sun  like  an  unintentional  error  which  proceeds  from  the  ruler. 

^.   He  places  the  fool  in  high  positions  often, 

But  the  nobles  dwell  in  low  estate. 
^.   I  have  seen  slaves  upon  horses, 

And  princes,  like  slaves,  walking  on  the  ground. 

8.  He  who  digs  a  pit  shall  fall  into  it. 

And  he  who  breaks  through  a  wall,  a  serpent  shall  bite  him. 

9.  He  who  quarries  stones  shall  be  hurt  by  them. 

And  he  who  cleaves  wood  shall  be  endangered  thereby. 
1°.  If  the  iron  be  dull. 

And  he  do  not  shatpen  its  edge, 

Then  he  must  strengthen  his  force  ; 

But  the  advantage  of  wisdom  is  to  give  success. 


170  ECCLESIASTES 

".  If  the  serpent  bite  for  lack  of  enchantment. 

Then  there  is  no  advantage  to  the  charmer. 
12.    The  words  of  the  mouth  of  the  wise  are  favor. 

But  the  lips  of  the  fool  shall  devour  him. 
'*.    The  beginning  of  the  ivords  of  his  mouth  is  folly. 

And  the  end  of  his  speech  is  wicked  madness. 

".  The  fool  multiplies  words: — 

[Man  does  not  know  that  which  shall  be,  and  what  shall  be  after  him 
who  can  tell  him  ?] 

15.    The  toil  of  fools  shall  weary  him 

Who  knows  not  how  to  go  to  town. 
".  Woe  to  thee,  O  land,  whose  king  is  a  child, 

And  whose  princes  feast  in  the  morning ! 
".   Happy  art  thou,  O  land,  whose  king  is  well  born, 

And  whose  princes  feast  at  the  (proper)  time, 

For  strength,  and  not  for  drinking  ! 
18.    Through  great  idleness  the  beam-work  sinks, 

And  through  falling  of  hands  the  house  drips. 
*'.  For  laughter  they  make  bread. 

And  wine  to  make  life  glad ; 

And  money  answers  both. 
2".  Do  not  even  in  thy  thought  curse  the  king. 

Nor  in  thy  bed-chamber  curse  a  rich  man  ; 

For  the  bird  of  heaven  shall  carry  the  voice, 

And  the  owner  of  wings  shall  tell  a  thing. 

10^  The  section  begins  with  genuine  words  of  Qoheleth.  It 
is  the  beginning  of  his  advice  concerning  one's  conduct  before 
rulers. — The  anger  of  the  ruler],  an  oft  recurring  calamity  under 
a  despotic  government. — Do  not  leave  thy  place],  i.e.,  throw  up 
thy  post. — Soothing  pacifies  great  sins],  pacifies  the  anger  aroused 
by  great  errors.  The  cause  is  here  put  for  the  effect.  Qoheleth's 
advice  is  the  wisdom  of  the  under  man,  but,  as  Genung  says,  it 
nevertheless  has  the  virtue  of  the  idea,  "Blessed  are  the  meek." — 
5.  There  is  an  evil],  a  favorite  expression  of  Qoheleth's,  cf.  51'  6'. 
— Like  an  unintentional  error],  as  if  it  were  an  unintentional  error. 
Qoheleth  here  exhibits  some  of  the  pacifying  spirit  which  he  has 
just  advised.  He  does  not  excite  the  anger  of  a  despot  by  suggest- 
ing that  his  errors  are  intentional.  Underneath  his  expression  we 
detect  a  deeper  note,  it  is  revealed  in  the  word  "evil."  One  must 
bow  to  the  despot,  but  the  despot  is  not  always  right.  This  is  a 
blot  on  the  government  of  the  world. — 6.  He  places  the  fool  in  high 


ATTITUDE  TOWARD  RULERS     [Ch.  lO^-^o  1 71 

positions]^  another  example  of  the  evils  of  despotic  government. 
Plumtre  thinks  it  a  reference  to  Agathoclea  and  her  brother,  who 
were  favorites  of  Ptolemy  Philopator  (B.C.  222-205),  (Justin, 
XXX,  i);  Haupt,  of  the  officers  appointed  by  Antiochus  IV  and 
his  successors,  who  betrayed  Jewish  interests  (i  Mac.  79  925  2  Mac. 
48.  13.  19.  25)_  ^Q  doubt,  many  examples  of  this  fault  could  be  found 
in  every  period  of  Oriental  government,  but  the  date  of  the  book 
(see  Introduction,  §13)  makes  Plumtre's  view  probable. — Often\ 
is  a  free  rendering  of  the  Hebrew,  see  crit.  note. — The  nobles],  lit- 
erally 'Hhe  rich,"  i.e.,  men  of  ancestral  wealth,  who  were  regarded 
as  the  natural  associates  of  kings,  and  the  holders  of  offices. — 
7.  Slaves  upon  horses],  another  example  of  the  way  a  despot  often 
reverses  the  natural  positions  of  his  subjects.  Justin  (XLI,  3) 
tells  how,  among  the  Parthians,  one  could  distinguish  freemen 
from  slaves  by  the  fact  that  the  former  rode  on  horses,  and  the 
latter  ran  on  foot.  An  instance  of  the  exercise  of  such  arbitrary 
power  in  later  times  is  found  in  the  decree  of  the  Fatimite  Caliph 
Hakim,  that  Christians  and  Jews  should  not  ride  horses,  but  only 
mules  or  asses  (see  Chronicle  of  Bar  Hebraeus,  p.  215).  As 
Siegfried  points  out,  the  mention  of  horses  here  is  an  index  of  late 
date,  as  in  early  Israel  kings  and  princes  rode  on  asses  or  mules, 
</.  Ju.  5'°  10^  2  S.  18^  I  K.  i»8  Zc.  99.  The  sentiment  corresponds 
to  that  of  Pr.  191".  Such  a  result  of  tyranny  reminds  Del.  (Hohes- 
lied  und  Koheleth,  222)  of  the  career  of  the  Persian  Bagoas,  in  the 
mind  of  Graetz  it  points  to  the  reign  of  Herod  (cf.  Jos.  Ant.  xvi, 
7  and  10),  but  almost  any  period  of  Oriental  history  must  have 
afforded  such  examples. 

8.  He  who  digs  a  pit  shall  fall  into  it].  This  is  clearly,  as  Sieg- 
fried and  McNeile  have  seen,  a  proverb  introduced  by  a  glossator. 
It  has  no  connection  with  the  preceding,  and  occurs  in  varying 
forms  in  Pr.  26"  and  BS.  27^6.  The  thought  of  the  first  half  is 
that  a  man  who  digs  a  pit  for  another  shall  fall  into  it  himself, 
cf.  Ps.  716  57«  BS.  2729. — He  who  breaks  through  a  wall],  to  rob  a 
garden  or  a  house. — A  serpent  shall  bite  him].  Serpents  in  Pales- 
tine often  lurk  in  the  crannies  of  a  wall,  cf.  Am.  s^K — 9.  He  who 
quarries  stones].  This  is  a  proverb  which  has  no  reference  to  the 
preceding.     As  Sieg.  and  McN.  have  seen,  it  is  a  gloss  introduced 


172  ECCLESIASTES 

by  the  Mokma  glossator.  Plumtre,  in  order  to  find  a  connection 
witii  the  preceding,  makes  the  "stones"  the  stones  of  landmarks, 
as  he  had  made  the  "wall"  of  the  preceding  verse,  but  this  arbi- 
trarily reads  a  meaning  into  it.  It  is  clearly  a  common  proverbial 
saying  on  the  danger  of  the  homely  occupations  of  quarrying  and 
wood-cutting.  It  is  perhaps  the  same  proverb  which  underlies 
the.  saying  attributed  to  Jesus  in  the  Oxyrhynchus  papyrus, 

Raise  the  stone  and  there  thou  shalt  find  me, 
Cleave  the  wood  and  there  am  I. 

(See  Grenfell  and  Hunt's  Sayings  of  our  Lord,  1897,  p.  12.)  The 
proverb  was  probably  introduced  here  because,  with  its  mate 
which  follows,  it  illustrates  the  value  of  wisdom. — He  who  cleaves 
wood].  This  may  be  fire-wood,  cf.  Lv.  i^  412. — Shall  he  endangered 
thereby].  For  an  illustration  of  the  danger,  cf.  Dt.  195. — 10.  IJ 
the  iron  he  dull],  the  axe  be  dull,  cf.  2  K.  6%  where  RV.  translates 
"iron"  by  "axe-head." — And  he  do  not  sharpen].  The  "he"  is 
no  doubt  intended  to  refer  to  the  wood-chopper  of  the  preceding 
verse.  This  gnomic  saying  was  probably  introduced  by  the  hand 
which  introduced  the  preceding. — Then  he  must  strengthen  his 
force].  He  must  accomplish  by  brute  strength  what  he  might 
have  done  more  easily  by  the  exercise  of  intelligence. — The  ad- 
vantage of  wisdom  is  to  give  success].  Wisdom,  by  enabling  a  man 
properly  to  prepare  his  tools,  helps  to  ensure  a  successful  issue  to 
his  work.  For  the  basis  of  this  rendering,  see  critical  note. — 
11.  //  the  serpent  bite  for  lack  of  enchantment].  This  is  another 
.proverb,  introduced  by  the  Hokma  glossator,  because  it  has  a 
bearing  on  wisdom,  or  the  use  of  wisdom.  Plumtre  thinks  that 
it  was  suggested  by  the  serpents  mentioned  in  vs.  8. — There  is  no 
advantage  to  tJie  charmer].  A  charm,  in  order  to  protect  from  a 
serpent's  bite,  must  be  exel-cised  before  he  bites.  If  it  is  not,  it  is 
of  no  value  to  its  owner.  The  proverb  strikes  the  same  note  as 
that  of  vs.  10.  Success  depends  upon  foresight.  Wisdom  that 
comes  afterward  is  useless  in  producing  results.  Snake-charming 
is  not  unoDrnmon  in  the  East,  as  in  ancient  Israel,  cf.  Je.  8^^ 
Ps.  58^  BS.  i2'»3. — 12.  The  words  of  the  month  of  the  wise  are  favor]. 
As  Hit.,  Gins.,  and  Zo.  have  noted,  they  obtain  favor  {cf.  Pr.  22"). 
This  proverbial  gloss  begins  by  praising  the  results  of  effectual 


ATTITUDE  TOWARD    RULERS     [Ch.  10^-^^        -  "     173 

wisdom.  It  teaches  positively  what  the  preceding  vs.  taught 
negatively. — The  lips  of  the  fool  shall  destroy  him].  This  presents 
the  antithesis.  Ineffectual  wisdom  is  equal  to  folly. — Hirn\  the 
fool. — 13.  The  vs.  is  another  proverbial  gloss,  which  interrupts 
Qoheleth's  reflections  on  rulers. — The  beginning  of  the  words] 
"Beginning"  contrasts  with  "end"  in  the  next  clause.  The  ex- 
pression is  kindred  to  the  Enghsh  "from  beginning  to  end." — Of 
his  mouth],  the  fool's.  The  proverbs  continue  to  treat  of  him. — 
Folly  .  .  .  wicked  tnadness].  There  is  progression  even  in  fool- 
ishness, that  which  begins  as  mere  folly  may  end  in  criminal  mad- 
ness. Possibly  Qoheleth  meant  simply  grievous  madness,  for  the 
word  employed  by  him  is  ambiguous,  see  critical  note. — 14^  The 
fool  multiplies  words].  Empty  talk  is  a  characteristic  of  folly. 
This  is  a  fragment  of  another  proverb  which  was  introduced  by  the 
Hokma  glossator.  The  rest  of  the  verse  has  no  connection  with 
it,  and  evidently  the  concluding  member  of  the  parallelism  is  lost. 

Id''.  Ma7i  does  not  know  that  which  shall  he].  McN.  is  right  in 
seeing  in  this  a  genuine  fragment  of  the  thought  of  Qoheleth,  it  is 
so  Hke  612  71*  and  8^  He  is  also  right  in  regarding  it  as  out  of  place 
here,  for  it  interrupts  the  reflections  on  the  evils  of  despotic  gov- 
ernment. Rashi,  Ginsburg  and  Wright  take  the  verse  to  mean 
that  the  fool  talks  a  great  deal  about  the  most  unknown  of  sub- 
jects— the  future;  but  Ginsburg  and  Delitzsch  are  then  puzzled 
to  know  why  an  equivalent  to  "although"  is  omitted.  The  so- 
lution of  McNeile  already  presented  is  far  more  probable.  Some 
glossator  clumsily  brought  disjecta  membra  together  here. 

15.  The  toil  of  fools  shall  weary  him,  who  knows  not  how  to  go 
to  town].  Another  proverbial  gloss  which  is  very  obscure.  Gins- 
burg rendered  "because  he  does  not  know,"  and  took  it  to  mean 
that  in  his  doings  as  well  as  in  his  sayings  the  folly  of  the  fool  mani- 
fests itself.  Ewald  thought  it  a  reference  to  bad  government,  in  which 
the  toil  of  fools  (i.e.,  heathen  rulers)  wearied  the  poor  countryman 
who  did  not  know  how  to  go  to  the  city.  Graetz,  w^hom  Renan 
followed,  thought  it  a  reference  to  the  Essenes,  who  lived  by  them- 
selves, and  avoided  cities  (Jos.  Ant.  xviii,  i*).  Wildeboer  thinks 
the  meaning  to  be  "he  who  asks  the  fool  the  way  to  the  city  will 
be  disappointed,"  and  similarly  Genung,  "one  cannot  make  out  of 


174 


ECCLESIASTES 


a  fool's  voluble  talk  the  way  to  the  nearest  town."  These  varieties 
of  opinion  serve  to  illustrate  the  difficulty  of  the  passage.  The 
rendering  adopted  above  makes  it  mean  the  folly  of  fools  wearies 
the  most  ignorant.  The  expression,  ''does  not  know  the  way  to 
town,"  was  no  doubt  proverbial  like  the  English,  "He  doesn't  know 
enough  to  come  in  when  it  rains,"  which  is  frequently  applied  to 
one  whom  the  speaker  wishes  to  stigmatize  as  especially  stupid. 
Perhaps  the  mutilation  of  the  preceding  proverb  has  made  this  more 
obscure.  For  other  ways  of  rendering  parts  of  it,  see  critical  note. 
16.  Woe  to  thee,  O  land].  This  verse  should  follow  lo*.  The 
original  remarks  of  Qoheleth  upon  rulers,  which  the  glossator 
has  interrupted  by  his  interpolations,  are  now  resumed. — Whose 
king  is  a^child].  This  is  an  expression  which  was  probably  called 
forth  by  some  bitter  experience  in  Qoheleth's  own  time.  Hitzig 
and  Genung  think  of  Ptolemy  Epiphanes,  who  came  to  the  throne 
of  Egypt  in  205  B.C.,  at  the  age  of  five  years.  The  word  used 
does  not  necessarily  mean  child  (see  critical  note),  but  was  ap- 
pHed  to  Solomon  at  his  accession  (i  K.  3^).  It  primarily,  how- 
ever, has  that  meaning  as  in  i  S.  31,  etc.,  and  no  doubt  has  it  here. 
Haupt  thinks  it  refers  to  Alexander  Balas.  See  above,  on  4^^^. 
The  considerations  there  adduced  lead  us  to  agree  with  Hitzig. — 
Whose  princes  feast  in  the  morning],  an  act  which  both  Hebrew 
and  Roman  condemned.  Cf.  Is.  511.  Cicero,  Phil,  ii,  41,  says, 
Ab  hora  tertia  bibebatiir,  ludebatur,  vomebatur.  Juvenal,  Satire, 
h  49,  50: 

£xul  ab  octava  Manns  bib  it  et  fruit  ur  dis 
Iratis. 

Catullus,  Carmen,  xlvii,  5,  6: 

Vos  convivia  lauta  sumtuose 
De  die  facitis. 

That  it  was  not  common  to  feast  in  the  morning.  Acts  2'%  where 
it  is  argued  that  the  Apostles  cannot  be  drunk  because  it  is  only 
the  third  hour,  shows.  This  implication  that  the  ''youth"  who 
is  king  is  given  to  revelry,  strengthens,  in  Haupt's  opinion,  the 
view  that  the  writer  has  Alexander  Balas  in  mind,  for  Justin  says 
of  him,  qiiem  insperatce  opes  et  alienee  felicitatis  ornamenta  velut 
captum  inter  scortoriim  greges  desidem  in  regia  tenabant.     It  could. 


ATTITUDE  TOWARD  RULERS    [Ch.  10^2"  1 75 

however,  as  well  apply  to  courtiers  of  Ptolemy  Epiphanes. — -17. 
Happy  art  thou  .  .  .  whose  king  is  well  horn\  The  prevailing 
regime  is  not  only  negatively  condemned,  but  by  way  of  contrast 
an  ideal  government  is  pictured.  "Well  born"  is  used  here  as 
a  compliment  to  the  able  king  in  Qoheleth's  mind.  It  does  not 
necessarily  imply  an  ignoble  birth  for  him  who  is  condemned. 
Perhaps  Qoheleth  is  paying  a  compliment  to  Antiochus  III,  who 
gained  Palestine  in  198  B.C.,  and  was  enthusiastically  received  by 
the  Jews.  See  Jos.  Ant.  xii,  33. — Feast  at  the  {proper)  time].  This 
reminds  us  of  ch.  31-^,  where  everything  is  said  to  have  its  time. — 
For  strength  and  not  for  drinking\,  that  they  may  be  real  heroes, 
and  not  "heroes  for  mingling  strong  drink,"  such  as  are  described 
in  Is.  522. 

18.  Through  great  idleness  the  beam-work  sinks].  As  Sieg., 
Ha.  and  McN.  have  seen,  this  is  a  proverb  introduced  as  a  gloss. 
Doubtless,  the  glossator  intended  to  hint  by  it  that  w^hen  the 
princes  of  a  state  gave  themselves  to  revelry,  the  structure  of  gov- 
ernment would  fall  into  ruin.  "Beam-work"  is  equivalent  to 
"roof,"  for  Palestinian  houses  are  made  of  stone  q,nd,  if  they  con- 
tain any  wood  at  all,  it  is  in  the  roof. — Falling  of  hands],  sl  syno- 
nym for  idleness,  cf.  Pr.  lo^ — The  house  drips],  the  roof  leaks. 
— 19.  For  laughter  they  make  bread].  McNeile  attributes  this  to  the 
same  Hokma  glossator,  but  it  does  not  seem  like  a  proverb.  It 
probably  comes,  however,  from  the  hand  of  this  glossator.  "They 
make  bread,"  seems  to  refer  back  to  the  feasting  princes  of  vs.  16. 
The  phrase  is  probably  not  a  part  of  Qoheleth's  works,  for  he 
would  have  introduced  it  immediately  after  that  vs.  "Make 
bread"  means  to  prepare  a  meal,  cf.  Ez.  415. — And  wine  to  make 
life  glad].  Many  commentators  have  seen  in  this  the  influence  of 
Ps.  io4'5.  As  Delitzsch  noted,  however,  the  thought  is  not  like 
that  of  the  psalm.  It  is  rather  similar  to  vs.  1,7 ;  they  use  eating 
and  drinking  not  to  gain  strength,  but  for  sport  and  revelry. — 
Money  answers  both].  Money  is  squandered  to  secure  both.  The 
glossator  probably  intended  to  suggest  that  the  feasting  of  the 
princes  of  vs.  16  dissipated  public  funds. 

20.  Do  not  even  in  thy  thought  curse  the  king].  The  genuine  words 
of  Qoheleth  reappear  once  more.     He  counsels  caution  and  self- 


176  ECCLESIASTES 

control  as  in  vvs.  4,  5.  His  thought  is  "treason  will  out." — Nor 
in  thy  bed-chamber],  in  thy  most  private  moments.  One  is  re- 
minded of  the  proverb  "walls  have  ears." — Curse  a  rich  7nan\  It 
is  taken  for  granted,  as  in  vs.  6,  that  the  wealthy  are  natural  rulers. 
— The  bird  of  heaven].  As  in  the  English  saying,  "a  little  bird  told 
me";  the  mysterious  paths  by  which  secrets  travel,  are  attributed 
to  the  agency  of  birds. 

104,  nn]=  "anger"  sometimes,  cf.  Ju.  8^  Is.  25^  ^t,^^  Zc.  68. — nS;] 
is  regularly  used  of  anger,  cf.  2  S.  ii^"  Ez.  3818  and  Ps.  7821-  si. — -inipr.]= 
"place"  in  the  sense  of  "post,"  cf.  i  S.  20". — njp],  fr.  mj=" leave," 
cf.  BDB.  629a. — Nfl"\::]  means  "healing."  McN.  rightly  renders  it 
"soothing."  SDB.'s  "composure"  (p.  951b)  does  not  suit  so  well. 
The  root  is  used  in  Ju.  8^  of  assuaging  anger. — n'':^.]=" quiets"  or 
"relaxes,"  cf.  71*  ii^. — 5.  \"iin->],  nu'N  is  implied  before  it.— ~;]  was 
called  by  the  older  grammarians  "  Kaf  veritatis."  It  is  in  reality  =  "  as," 
cf.  Neh.  72  and  Ges.^-  §ii8x. — "c;]  is  omitted  by  Ci»,  but  as  Eur.  ob- 
serves, this  is  probably  accidental.  Its  omission  in  one  authority  would 
be  more  likely  due  to  accident  than  its  insertion  in  all  the  others,  to 
design. — njju'J^"  unintentional  error,"  cf.  Lv.  5I8  Nu.  1525.— ns'J, 
fem.  part.,  instead  of  hnx"' — another  example  of  a  n"?  verb,  treated  by 
Qoheleth  as  n"-'. — 6.  |nj],  as  often  means  "set,"  "place,"  cf.  Dt.  171* 
Est.  68.-^5?],  (g,  B,  A,  'A,  S,  all  read  ^^d.  They,  no  doubt,  had  an 
unpointed  text  before  them.  Ra.,  Gins.,  Del.,  and  Wr.  read  SdD,  and 
explained  the  abstr.  as  used  for  the  concrete,  but  it  is  better  with  Eur. 
and  Dr.  to  read  Sdd. — DDnD]=  "exalted  positions"  or  "posts,"  cf 
Is.  24*  Job  5". — an->]  is  an  appositive  to  D^:2n::="high  positions — 
many  of  them."  It  is  rendered  freely  above  to  preserve  more  nearly 
the  metrical  form. — D"'-\^U7]  was  thought  by  Houb.'  and  Spohn  not  to 
form  a  good  contrast,  they  accordingly  emended  the  text;^^but,  as  explained 
above,  it  fits  both  the  literary  form  and  the  historical  fact.  Gins,  and 
Del.  compare  yS''^  in  the  sense  of  "liberal"  in  Job  36^3  and  Is.  32^. — 
7.  y^i<r\  S;]  is  equal,  as  Del.  noted,  to  ^ryi. 

8.  ?oij],  an  Aramaic  loan  word,  cf.  Barth,  Nominalbildung,  §45n  i,  and 
Noldeke,'  Mandcsan  Gram.  §44.  The  word  is  used  in  the  Targ.  on 
Pr.  22^^  for  the  Heb.  nnitt'.  It  occurs  in  the  same  form  in  Targ.  on 
Pr.  2627;  in  Targ.  to  Is.  24"-  is  and  Je.  48^2.  43  it  is  written  r'^^^,  while 
the.  Targ.  on  2  S.  18"  writes  it  yr!^p. — ->nj]  is  not  a  hedge,  it  is  built  of 
stones,  cf.  Pr.  24^1.  Ha.  arbitrarily  regards  the  word  as  a  gl.  Not  even 
his  metrical  theofy  demands  it. — ir'j]  is  used  of  the  bite  of  a  serpent, 
cf.  Gn.  49".  Wr.  and  Wild,  held  that  the  imperfects  here  implied 
simiply  possibility,  but  to  render  "mafy  fall"  and  "may  bite"  would  rob 
the  couplet  of  force. — 9.  r?P]="to  break  up"  or  "quarry,"  cf.  i  K, 


ATTITUDE  TOWARD  RULERS     [Ch.  10^-^  177 

5'i  and  BDB.  652b. — 2y;^:]  frequently  means  "be  grieved,"  as  in  Gn. 
45*  I  S.  2o3,  but  it  also  means  "be  pained,"  as  in  i  S.  20^^  2  S.  19^  then 
as  here  "be  hurt,"  cf.  BDB.  780b. — I?d^]  was  a  great  perplexity  to  the 
commentators  of  the  first  half  of  the  nineteenth  century,  but  as  Del. 
pointed  out, it  is  a  NH.  word="be_in  danger"  (cf.  Berakoth,  i^).  It  also 
occurs  in  Aram,  and  is  no  doubt  an  Aramaism,  cf.  5DB.  698  and  J  a. 
991b. — 10.  This  is,  as  Wr.  observed,  linguistically  the  most  difficult  verse 
in  the  book. — ^^^^  occurs  here  as  Piel — the  only  instance  in  BH.,  it 
is  found  as  Kal  in  Je.  3129-  so  Ez.  182.  The  Kal  is  common  in  NH., 
cf.  Ja.  1321b.  (^  read  Vijj,  but  that  gives  no  sense. — D''JD]="face" 
or  "forepart,"  here  used  instead  of  ns  or  "'S  for  "edge,"  cf.  5DB.  8i6a. 
In  Ez.  2i2'  it  is  also  used  for  the  "edge"  of  a  sword. — '^p'^?],  Pilpel  of 
SSp.  Cf.  S^-)  ni:'nj]=" polished  bronze,"  Ez.  i^  Dn.  los.  A  "polished 
edge"  is  a  "sharpened  edge." — I3ji>  D-'S"'n]="to  make  mighty  (one's) 
power,"  see  Job  21'  and  cf.  i  Ch.  75-  t-  "  and  4". — "isdh  n-'^ron],  should 
probably  with  Winck.,  Ha.  and  Dr.  be  transposed,  as  we  have  done 
above  in  translating.  McN.  follows  <&,  ^  and  U  in  reading  -\'^_zr}  = 
"the  successful  man."  This  has  better  textual  authority,  but  gives 
doubtful  sense. — "Ctt'bn],  is  Hiph.  Inf.,  cf.  BDB.  506b.  Zap.  omits  n::D,-i, 
to  make  the  metre  more  symmetrical. — 11.  •k:''n'^]=  "to  whisper,"  used  in 
Is.  26'^  of  a  whispered  prayer,  elsewhere  in  BH.  is  used  of  the  whispered 
utterances  which  charm  a  serpent,  cf.  Je.  8'^  Is.  3^  Ps.  58^  The  root 
has  the  same  meaning  in  the  Talmud,  cf.  Ja.  704  {i.e.,  J.Ar.),  and  in 
Syr. — N1V3]  is  used  before  nouns  in  the  sense  of  "for  lack  of,"  "without" 
and  in  kindred  meanings.  Cf.  Is.  551-  2  Job  1532  and  Ko.  §402r. — ^>n 
pr'?n]=:"lord  of  the  tongue,"  was  taken  by  Hit.,  on  the  analogy  of  S;'a 
1J3="bird,"  to  mean  "a  human  being,"  but  0"'irnSn  h^ph  ^T2'<y-^  in 
Ps.  586  shows  that  in  "charming"  stress  was  laid  on  the  use  of  language, 
and  this,  taken  in  connection  with  the  context  here,  makes  it  clear  that 
Gins.,  Del.  and  Wr.  were  justified  in  rendering  it  "enchanter,"  "wiz- 
ard."— 12.  p],  cf.  Ps.  453  Pr.  2211.  The  metaphorical  statement  makes 
the  sentence  emphatic. — ninai:'],  instead  of  Dv^Dt:*,  is  poetical  and  late, 
cf.  Is.  593  Ps.  453  598  Ct.  43-  11  513. — nji'S^n],  fem.  imperf.,  the  subj. 
is  mnsi:*.  The  suffix  refers  to  S"'Dd. — 13.  nVnr]  occurs  only  here  in 
Qo.  In  3"  he  has  cn-\  and  in  78  rvti'Xi.  rhr\T\  is,  however,  good  BH., 
cf.  Gn.  133  (RJE.)  and  Ho.  12. — inifl]  in  13b  is  used  by  metonomy  for 
n^";,  or  some  synonym  of  it  as  in  Is.  2913  Ps.  49".  Gins,  and  Sieg.  are 
wrong  in  thinking  it  necessary  to  supply  ''13 t  before  it.  Q.  varied  the 
expression  for  the  sake  of  variety. — niSSm],  cf.  on  ii^— n;*-\],  as  Del. 
suggests,  may  have  only  the  force  which  it  has  in  n>n  "hn  (62)  and 
nSin  n;?-^  (512),  where  it  means  "disagreeable"  or  "serious."  but  it 
may  also  stand  for  ethical  evil  as  in  Dt.  301*  2  S.  141^  Is.  520  Am.  5". 
— 14.  nin-'tt'].  The  versions,  except  (U,  read  ^''r\t\  but  this  was  probably  be- 
cause the  passage  was  obscure,  and  a  contrast  of  tenses  seemed  to  help 


178  ECCLESIASTES 

it.  Analogy  of  other  passages  in  Q.,  where  the  sentiment  occurs,  supports 
MT. — 15.  ij>rr]  seems  to  take  ^o>'  as  a  fern.,  which  is  without  parallel. 
This  has  caused  scholars  much  discussion.  The  true  solution  has,  how- 
ever, been  found  by  Albrecht  (ZAW.,  XVI,  113),  who  emends  the  verb 
to  ^y;}r\  This  is  supported  by  Ko.  (§249m)  and  Sieg.  The  suffix 
"iJ-  is  ambiguous.  Does  it  refer  to  D''^"'D:n,  a  sing,  to  a  pi.,  as  so  often 
happens  in  Deut.  ?  So,  Hit.,  Gins,  and  Wr.  Does  it  refer  back  to 
DIN  in  vs.  14?  So,  Ko.  (§348v).  It  seems  bettet  to  make  it  point  for- 
ward to  the  relative. — ">-'•]  is  taken  by  Kn.  and  Gins,  and  Gr.  =  "  be- 
cause." It  seems  better  with  Heil.  to  make  it  a  rel.  pro.  referring  to 
•1J-. — "("'yVx],  a  colloquial  expression,  like  the  English  "to  town," 
for  ■^"';*n  Sn.  pi.  thinks  that  it  points  to  a  boyhood  near  Jerusalem. 
It  is  probably,  however,  a  proverbial  expression,  with  no  local  reference. 

16.  "'n],  a  late  form  used  in  the  Talm.  In  BH.  usually  "'"in,  as  in  Is. 
6^;  sometimes  ''■">,  as  in  Ez.  2'". — "i^'J  iDSctt'],  as  Del.  observes,  would  in 
earlier  Heb.  be  nj'^D  -\>'j  i^'n. — -nyj]  was  held  by  Dod.,  Van  der  P., 
Spohn  and  Gr.  to=  "slave."  Gr.  believed  it  to  be  a  reference  to  Herod 
the  Great,  who  is  called  in  the  Talm.  {Baba  Batra,  3b,  and  Keiuboth,  24) 
"the  slave  of  the  Hasmonaeans."  If  slave  had  been  intended,  probably 
'^2';  would  have  been  used,  "^yj  is  not  necessarily  a  child;  it  is  used 
of  Solomon  at  his  accession  (i  K.  3^)  and  of  Ziba,  who  had  sons  and 
slaves  (2  S.  19'^),  but  nevertheless  is  often  used  to  mean  "child," 
cf.  Ex.  2*  Ju.  13*-  ^  I  S.  421. — V3N']="eat,"  but  here  in  the  sense  of 
feast,  cf.  Is.  5". — 17.  T'I'^n]  varies  from  the  ordinary  pointing  ■I''."l;:''n. 
Ko.  (§32if)  says  the  variation  is  because  it  is  used  here  as  an  inter- 
jection.— anin  p],  an  Aramaism=nn -\3=" freeman"  (cf.  S.  A.  Cook, 
Glos.  of  Aram.  Inscr.,  56).  Driver  (Introd.  Signi)  says  O'ln  is  an 
Aram,  word  used  in  northern  Israel,  but  never  applied  to  the  nobles 
of  Judah  except  in  Je.  272"  396,  passages  which  are  not  in  (S  and  are  later 
than  Je.'s  time. — n-\njJ3],  on  3,  cf  Ges.^-  §1191. — ''.■^!:']=" drinking"  or 
"drinking-bout."     It  is  a  a.X.  in  BH. 

18.  d^pSs;],  dual  of  nSs;?.  AE.,  Hit.,  Ew.,  Heil.,  Gins,  and  Zo.  take 
the  dual  to  refer  to  a  pair  of  hands.  Del.,  Wr.,  BDB.  (p.  782a)  and 
Ko.  (§275c)  take  the  dual  form  as  intensive.  Bick.  emends  to  m'^'v;, 
after  Pr.  3127,  Sieg.  and  McN.  emend  to  on-"  nSx>:,  Dr.  hesitates  be- 
tween the  two  emendations.  In  the  text,  we  have  followed  Del.,  Wr., 
BDB.  and  Ko.  The  last  cites  as  parallel  D\r}';'i^'^  Ju.  38-  i«  and  D^niD  Je. 
5021.  To  these  might,  perhaps,  be  added  D^"5ns=  "  midday,"  though  Ges.'^- 
(§88c)  casts  doubt  on  the  reality  of  such  duals,  and  it  may  be  better  to  adopt 
one  of  the  emendations. — ID'],  Niph.  of  "130,  The  verb  occurs  but  twice 
elsewhere  in  BH.,Ps.  106"  in  Kal,and  Job2424inHoph.  The  stem  occurs 
in  Aram.,  Syr.,  and  Ar.  It  is  to  be  regarded  as  an  Aramaism. — nnf^pn] 
is  a  a.X.  The  word  is  usually  r\-^P,  cf  Gn.  198  and  Ct.  i",  cf  also 
BDB,  900a.     Baer,  p.  68,  observes  that  the  D  is  here  pointed  with 


FINAL  ADVICE    [Ch.  ll'-12«  179 

Daghesh  to  distinguish  the  noun  from  the  part,  which  occurs  in  Ps. 
1043.— niScB']  is  also  a.X.,  cf.  BDB.  1050b.  It  is  used  for  slackness  of 
hand  like  on^  ^von,  Je.  47'-  It  is  the  opposite  of  n^nn  ^d,  Pr.  lo^— 
^s-,,]^  ri^-,=  "to  drip"  and  so  "to  leak."  It  occurs  but  twice  besides 
in  BH.,  Job  162"  and  Ps.  iig^s,  where  it  is  used  figuratively  for  weeping. 
In  Aram,  it  is  found  in  the  Targ.  to  Pr.  191^  and  also  in  the  Talm.  In 
the  latter  it  is  more  often  q^?,  cf.  Ja.  402a.— 19.  pmu-S],  as  Del.  and  Wr. 
observe,  ">  denotes  purpose.— on^  D>C7]="to  prepare  a  meal"  {cf.  Ez. 
4'*),  as  onS  Sos  means  "to  eat  a  meal"  {cf.  Gn.  31"  Ex.  iS^^  Je.  41O. 
— not'^]  is  difficult.  It  is  better,  as  McN.  has  proposed,  to  follow  (S 
and  emend  to  ncrV,  making  it  parallel  to  pinr^.— noon],  silver  stood  for 
money  throughout  the  ancient  world,  except  in  Egypt  in  early  periods 
of  its  history.  The  ordinary  man  saw  no  gold.—  r\ir\  As  Del.  and  Wr. 
observe,  there  is  no  reason  with  Gins,  to  regard  this  as  a  Hiph.  "  Money 
can  procure  (answer)  to  both,"  is  the  thought.— Vsn].     For  this  in  the  sense 

of  "both,"  see  on  2'^— 20.  ^n ^y\=ne  quidem,cf.  Ko.  §34iu.— yir.], 

"knowledge"  is  here  used  for  "mind"  or  "thought."  It  is  a  late  Ara- 
maized  form  occurring  elsewhere  in  BH.  only  in  2  Ch.  i^"  11  ''  and  Dn. 
1*  ".  It  occurs  in  the  Targ.  on  Je.  3''  Ps.  34^  and  Pr.  i^.  In  Aram, 
it  frequently  appears  y^jr.;  cf.  Dn.  2"  431-  33  512  and  Targ.  to  Job  33^. 
— hSd]  is  in  Q.  definite  without  the  art.,  cf  5^  S^-"  91^  and  K6.  §294d. 

130'i»D  mni],  cf  2  K.  6^^. — "n  ']v;]  is  not  individualized,  cf.  Ko.  §254f. — 

d:djdS>-3],  syn.  for  a  bird,  cf.  n^^  ^i'^,  Pr.  i".  Cf  also  D^np  Syi,  in 
Dn.  86  zo.—i^r]  is  one  of  the  few  jussives  in  the  book.  Why  a  jussive 
should  appear  here  is  a  puzzle.  Ko.  (§i9i«)  says  the  reading  is  uncer- 
tain, and  Dr.  does  not  hesitate  to  read  -i^J\  Probably  this  is  right, 
though  Baer  (p.  68)  adduces  a  parallel  to  ■i\r.  (the  jussive  with  cere 
followed  by  ')  in  i^Jni,  Ex.  193.  Ges.^-,  however  (§53n),  declares 
-\>v  both  here  and  in  Ex.  193  to  be  an  error.     This  is  probably  correct, 

111-128. — Qoheleth's  final  advice. 

111.  Cast  thy  bread  on  the  face  of  the  waters, 
For  in  many  days  thou  shalt  find  it. 

2.  Give  a  portion  to  seven  and  also  to  eight, 

For  thou  knowest  not  what  evil  shall  be  on  the  earth. 

3.  If  the  clouds  are  filled  with  rain, 
They  empty  it  over  the  earth  ; 

If  wood  fall  southward  or  northward, 

The  place  where  wood  falls— there  it  shall  be. 
*.  A  wind-observer  will  not  sow, 

And  a  cloud-watcher  will  not  reap. 
6.  As  thou  knowest  not  what  the  path  of  the  wind  is, 

Nor  the  bones  in  the  womb  of  a  pregnant  woman. 

So  thou  mayest  not  know  the  work  of  God, 

Who  makes  the  whole. 


l8o  ECCLESIASTES 

*.  In  the  morning  sow  thy  seed, 
And  till  evening  rest  not  thy  hand, 
For  thou  knowest  not  which  sliall  succeed,  this  or  that, 
Or  both  alike  shall  be  good. 

''.  The  light  is  sweet,  and  it  is  good  for  the  eyes  to  see  the  sun.  *.  For 
if  a  man  shall  live  many  years  and  rejoice  in  them  all,  yet  let  him  re- 
member the  days  of  darkness,  for  they  will  be  many.  All  that  is  coming 
is  vanity. 

9.   Rejoice,  O  young  man,  in  thy  youth, 

And  let  thy  heart  cheer  thee  in  the  days  of  thy  prime, 

And  walk  in  the  ways  of  thy  heart  and  the  sight  of  thy  eyes, 

BUT  KNOW  THAT  FOR  ALL  THESE  THINGS  GOD  WILL  BRING  THEE 
INTO   JUDGMENT. 

i".   Put  away  vexation  from  thy  heart 
And  remove  misery  from  thy  flesh, — 
For  youth  and  prime  are  vanity. 

121.   BUT   REMEMBER   THY   CREATOR  .IN   THE   DAYS    OF   THY   PRIME. 

While  the  evil  days  come  not. 

Nor  approach  the  years  of  which  thou  shalt  say 

I  have  in  them  no  pleasure; 
'.  While  the  sun  be  not  darkened. 

Nor  the  light  and  moon  and  stars, 

Nor  the  clouds  return  after  rain, 
3.  In  the  day  when  the  keepers  of  the  house  shall  tremble 

And  the  men  of  valor  bend  themselves. 

And  the  grinding-maids  cease  because  they  are  few, 

And  the  ladies  who  look  out  of  the  windows  are  darkened, 
*.  And  the  doors  on  the  street  are  shut 

When  the  sound  of  the  mill  is  low. 

And  he  shall  rise  at  the  voice  of  the  bird. 

And  all  the  daughters  of  song  are  prostrate, — 
B,  Also  he  is  afraid  of  a  height. 

And  terror  is  on  the  road. 

And  the  almond-tree  blooms. 

And  the  grasshopper  is  burdensome. 

And  the  caper-berry  is  made  ineflfectual, 

For  the  man  goes  to  his  eternal  house, 

And  the  mourners  go  around  the  street; — 
6.  While  the  silver  cord  is  not  severed. 

Nor  the  golden  bowl  broken, 

Nor  the  water-jar  be  shattered  at  the  spring. 

Nor  the  wheel  broken  at  the  cistern, 
'.  And  the  dust  shall  return  to  the  earth  as  it  was. 

And  the  spirit  shall  return  unto  God  who  gave  it. 


Vanity  of  vanities,  says  Qoheleth,  all  is  vanity. 


FINAL  ADVICE     [Ch.  lli-128  l8l 

111-128  contains  Qoheleth's  final  advice.  This  he  utters  in  full 
consideration  of  all  that  he  has  said  before.  The  discourse  is 
often  enigmatical,  but  with  the  exception  of  two  glosses  from  the 
hand  of  the  Chasid  (ii^^  and  121^),  which  have  given  much  trouble 
to  interpreters,  it  flows  on  uninterruptedly.  He  urges  prudent 
kindliness  and  industry,  combined  with  pleasure,  before  old  age 
makes  all  impossible. 

11'.  Cast  thy  bread  on  the  water s\  This  is  evidently  a  figurative 
expression,  but  what  does  the  figure  mean?  At  least  four  inter- 
pretations have  been  suggested,  (i)  It  has  been  taken  by  Geier, 
Mich.,  Dod.,  Mendelssohn,  Hit.,  Del.,  Wild.,  Ha.  and  McN.  to 
apply  to  trading.  "Commit  your  goods  to  the  sea  and  wait  for 
your  returns  until  long  voyages  are  over."  (2)  Van  der  P.  and 
Bauer  took  it  to  refer  to  agriculture,  meaning  "Sow  thy  seed  on 
moist  places  near  water,  and  thou  wilt  obtain  a  rich  harvest." 
(3)  Graetz,  in  the  same  way,  takes  "bread"  as  equivalent  to 
"seed,"  but  interprets  it  of  the  "seed"  of  human  Hfe,  and  so  finds 
in  the  verse  a  maxim  bordering  on  the  licentious.  (4)  It  is  taken 
by  Kn.,  Gins.,  Zo.,  Wr.,  No.,  Sieg.  and  Marsh,  as  an  exhortation 
to  liberality.  Of  these  interpretations  the  second  and  third  are 
undoubtedly  wrong,  for  "bread"  never  means  "seed."  The  first 
seems,  on  the  whole,  less  probable  than  the  fourth,  for  "bread" 
does  not  mean  "merchandise."  In  favor  of  the  fourth  expla- 
nation is  an  Arabic  proverb,  which  Heiligstedt,  Ginsburg,  Plumtre 
and  Wright  quote  from  Diaz'  Denkwilrdigkeiten  von  Asien.  The 
proverb  forms  the  culmination  of  a  story  which  relates  how  Mo- 
hammed, son  of  Hassan,  had  been  daily  in  the  habit  of  throwing 
loaves  into  a  river,  how  the  life  of  an  adopted  son  of  Caliph  Mu- 
tewekkel,  who  had  escaped  drowning  by  cHmbing  upon  a  rock, 
was  thus  preserved,  and  how  Mohammed  saw  in  it  the  proof  of 
the  truth  of  a  proverb  he  had  learned  as  a  boy,  "Do  good,  cast 
thy  bread  upon  the  waters,  and  one  day  thou  shalt  be  rewarded." 
The  story  suggests  that  this  proverb  may  be  an  echo  of  Qohe- 
leth  himself.  One  may  compare  another  Arabic  saying  (see 
Jewett's  "Arabic  Proverbs,"  JAOS.,  XV,  p.  68): 

The  generous  man  is  always  lucky. 

If  this  be  the  meaning  of  the  verse,  its  thought  is  kindred  to  the 


1 82  ECCLESIASTES 

exhortation  of  Jesus,  "Make  to  yourselves  friends  by  means  of 
the  mammon  of  unrighteousness,"  Lk.  i6'-'. — 2.  Give  a  portion  to 
seven  and  also  to  eight].  There  has  naturally  been  given  to  this 
verse  the  same  variety  of  interpretations  as  to  vs.  i,  each  inter- 
preter explaining  the  vs.  as  completing  his  view  of  that.  The  two 
most  popular  explanations,  however,  are  (i)  that  which  makes 
it  refer  tq  merchandise,  and  (2)  that  which  makes  it  refer  to  liber- 
ality. According  to  (i),  the  verse  advises  the  merchant  to  divide 
his  venture  between  seven  or  eight  ships,  because  he  does  not  know 
which  may  be  overtaken  by  disaster.  According  to  (2),  the  giver 
is  advised  to  give  to  seven  or  eight  people,  because  he  does  not 
know  what  evil  may  overtake  him  or  whom  he  may  need  as  friends. 
Cf.  Lk.  16 «,  last  clause.  According  to  the  meaning  which  we  found 
in  the  first  verse,  the  second  of  these  interpretations  seems  most 
probable.  Such  an  arrangement  of  numbers  in  a  literary  figure 
is  frequent  in  BH.  Thus  ''once"  and  "twice"  occur  in  Job  2>y* 
Ps.  62",  "twice"  and  "thrice"  Job  T,y\  "two"  and  "three" 
Is.  i7«,  "three"  and  "four"  Am.  i'-  ^-  ^-  n-  '^  2^-  "•  ^  Pr.  301=- 1*-  " 
Ex.  2o5  347,  "four"  and  "five"  Is.  176,  "seven"  and  "eight" 
Mi.  5*.  Such  figures  are  vivid  ways  of  conveying  the  idea  of  "a 
few,"  or  "some"  or  "many." 

3.  This  verse  is  loosely  connected  with  the  closing  words  of  vs. 
2,  since  it  shows  man's  powerlessness  in  the  presence  of  the  laws 
of  fate.     Human  helplessness  is  illustrated  by  two  examples, 

If  the  clouds  are  filled  widi  rain, 
They  emptjj  it  oyer  the  eardi, — 

i.e.,  man  is  powerless  to  prevent  it.  Nature  goes  on  in  accordance 
with  inflexible  laws,  which  man  cannot  alter.  This  is  one  ex- 
ample.    The  other  is. 

If  wood  falls  southward  or  northward, 

The  place  where  wood  falls — there  it  shall  be. 

The  word  here  rendered  "\yOod"  has  usually  been  rendered 
"tree."  It  has  both  meanings.  If  we  understand  that  a  tree  is 
meant,  the  illustration  as  McNeile  has  noticed  is  a  weak  one.  Man 
cannot  prevejit  the  rain,  but,  though  a  tree  felled  by  a  tempest  may 
be  unable  to  move  itself,  man  can  move  it.  If  this  were  the 
meaning,  the  illustration  is  inapt,  and  the  verse  forms  an  anti- 


FINAL  ADVICE     [Ch.  ll'-128  183 

climax.  McNeile's  suggestion  that  the  clause  refers  to  divination 
by  means  of  a  rod  or  staff,  such  as  that  to  which  Ho.  4"  alludes, 
has  accordingly  much  to  commend  it.  The  half  verse  would  then 
mean,  "If  a  stick  is  tossed  up  in  the  air,  that  a  man  may  guide  his 
action  by  the  direction  in  w^hich  it  comes  to  rest,  he  has  no  control 
over  the  result."  This  meaning  gives  a  climax  and  is  probably 
correct. — 4.  A  wind-observer  will  not  sow].  One  who  waits  till 
there  is  no  wind  to  disturb  the  even  scattering  of  his  seed.' — A 
cloud-watcher  will  not  reap].  One  who  wants  to  be  sure  that  his 
grain,  when  cut,  will  not  get  wet.  The  thought  of  the  verse  is,''  If 
one  waits  for  ideal  conditions,  he  will  lose  his  opportunity  and  ac- 
complish nothing."  Siegfried  objects  that  this  verse  could  not  have 
been  written  in  Palestine,  because  it  never  rains  there  in  halvv-est- 
time,  and  he  cites  i  S.  12^^  as  proof.  The  passage  in  Samuel, 
however,  proves,  not  that  it  never  rained  in  harvest,  but  that  rain 
was  sufficiently  rare  at  that  time  to  make  people  think  that  when 
it  came,  it  was  sent  as  a  punishment  for  wickedness.  In  later  times 
it  was  regarded  as  out  of  place,  though  not  impossible,  see  Pr.  261. 
Seasons  vary  greatly,  but  in  years  of  exceptionally  heavy  rains  it 
often  happens  that  rain  continues  to  fall  well  into  April,  and  inter- 
feres with  the  cutting  of  the  earlier-ripening  grain.  Cf.  Barton, 
A  Yearns  Wandering  in  Bible  Lands,  185;  Bacon,  Atner.  Jour,  of 
Arch.,  Supplement  to  Vol.  X,  p.  34  Jf.,  and  Ewing,  Arab  and 
Driize  at  Home,  1907, p.  127, r/.  p.  2ff.  and  10^. — 5.  Thou  knowest 
not  what  the  path  of  the  wind  is].  Qoheleth  now  passes  on  to  point 
out  that  man  does  not  know  and  cannot  know  the  ways  and  works 
of  God.  The  "path  of  the  wind"  reminds  one  of  Jn.  y.  This 
last  passage  is  perhaps  a  reminiscence  of  Qoheleth,  though  the 
resemblance  is  too  vague  to  make  the  reminiscence  certain.- — Nor 
the  bones  in  the  womb].  The  mystery  of  birth  filled  also  a  Psalmist 
^probably  of  the  Maccabaean  period — with  awe,r/.  Ps.  i39>3-i«. — 
So  thou  mayest  not  know  the  work  of  God].  Man's  inability  to 
penetrate  the  works  of  God  is  a  favorite  topic  with  this  wTiter  {cf. 
3'i  8'"  9'2).  Qoheleth  is,  however,  a  theistic  agnostic,  though  his 
idea  of  God's  goodness  is  not  exalted  {cf.  3"). — The  whole].  Ac- 
cording to  Delitzsch,  this  does  not  mean  "the  universe,"  but  all 
such   things  as  have   been   mentioned.     The   phrase   might   be 


1 84  ECCLESIASTES 

rendered  "  who  makes  both,"  i.e.,  the  way  of  the  wind  and  the  bones 
in  the  womb,  cf.  critical  note  on  2^\ 

6.  In  the  morning  sow  thy  seed].  It  is  clear  that  the  verse  is 
figurative,  but  what  does  the  figure  mean?  Like  verse  i  it  has 
received  widely  different  interpretations,  (i)  Graetz,  following 
a  Jewish  Midrash  and  a  Talmudic  passage  {Yehamoth,  62b),  takes 
it  to  mean  "Beget  children  in  youth  and  even  to  old  age,  whether 
in  or  out  of  wedlock."  Indeed,  it  is  from  this  verse  that  he  obtains 
the  meaning  for  vs.  i  noted  above.  There  is  no  reason,  however, 
for  taking  "seed"  in  this  sense  in  either  vs.  Qoheleth  was  not 
averse  to  such  pleasures  of  sense  {cf.  2^  9^),  but  he  never  revels 
in  filth.  He  is  thoroughly  healthy -minded.  (2)  Plumtre  takes  it 
to  mean  that  one  is  to  sow  the  seed  of  good  and  kindly  deeds,  and 
await  the  harvest  which  is  hidden  from  him.  This,  it  is  true, 
would  harmoriize  with  the  meaning  which  we  have  found  in  vs.  i , 
but  the  context  iridicates  that  the  writer  has  now  passed  away 
from  that  topic.  (3)  Most  recent  interpreters  rightly  take  it  to 
mean  that  from  youth  till  the  evening  of  life,  one  is  manfully  to 
perform  the  full  round  of  life's  tasks,  that  he  is  not  to  hesitate  be- 
cause of  the  uncertainties  w^hich  wxre  set  forth  in  vs.  5,  and  that  he 
is  to  take  the  losses  which  come  in  a  philosophical  spirit. — Thou 
knowest  not  which  shall  succeed].  Try  your  hand  at  every  right  task, 
for  you  cannot  tell  in  advance  which  will  bring  success.  AsGenung 
observes,  the  verse  is  evidence  of  Q.'s  sturdy  sense  and  manliness. 

7.  Light  is  sweet].  The  pessimistic  mood  of  ch.  4',  which  had 
passed  away  from  Qoheleth  when  he  wrote  9%  has  not  returned. 
He  recognizes  in  this  verse  the  primal  delight  of  mere  living. — 
8.  If  a  man  live  many  years  and  rejoice].  Life  is  good — to  behold 
the  sun  is  sweet,  but  Qoheleth  is  oppressed  by  its  brevity  and  the 
dread  of  death,  as  Horace  was  (cf.  Odes,  I,  4'?;  IV,  7'«). — Re- 
memher],  if  used  of  future  things,  is  equivalent  to  "ponder," 
"reflect  upon." — The  days  of  darkness],  i.e.,  the  days  in  Sheol, 
which  is  several  times  described  as  the  land  of  darkness,  cf.  Ps. 
8812  1433  Job  1021  ■  22, — All  that  is  coming  is  vanity],  the  whole 
future — the  days  in  Sheol — is  an  unsubstantial  reality.  No  positive 
joy  can  be  counted  on  there. — 9^  Rejoice,  O  young  man,  in  thy 
youth].     As  a  result  of  the  brevity  of  life  and  the  darkness  of  the 


FINAL  ADVICE     [Ch.  11>-128.  iS 


future,  Qoheleth  urges  young  men  to  make  the  most  of  youth  and 
of  manhood's  prime.  It  is  a  natural  argument  which  has  occurred 
to  others  also.  Herodotus  (2^8)  tells  how  the  Egyptians  at  their 
feasts  had  the  image  of  a  dead  body  in  a  coffin  carried  about  and 
shown  to  each  of  the  company  who  was  addressed  thus,  "Look  on 
this,  then  drink  and  enjoy  yourself,  for  when  dead  you  will  be  like 
this."  That  it  had  also  been  used  by  the  Babylonians  has  been 
shown  in  the  notes  on  9^^. — Walk  in  the  ways  of  thy  heart].  Grat- 
ify thy  desires.  From  these  come  all  the  pleasures  man  is  ever 
to  receive,  so  self-denial  is  self-destruction.  Cf.  i  Cor.  15^^ 
This  verse  is  controverted  in  Wisdom,  2«. — 9**.  But  know  that  for 
all  these  things  God  will  bring  thee  into  judgment].  This  is  so  out 
of  harmony  with  the  context,  but  so  in  accord  with  the  Chasid  point 
of  view,  and  especially  with  3^^,  which  we  have  already  recognized 
as  a  Chasid  gloss,  that  there  is  no  doubt  but  that  McNeile  is  right 
in  regarding  this  phrase  here  as  the  work  of  the  Chasid  glossator. 

10.  Put  away  vexation  from  thy  heart].  Take  the  easiest  course 
both  mentally  and  physically. — For  youth  and  prime  are  vanity]. 
Youth  and  the  prime  quickly  flee.  The  vs.  is  a  restatement  of  the 
thought  of  vs.  9a.  If  we  are  right  in  seeing  in  i2i''  another  Chasid 
gloss,  the  argument  to  make  the  most  of  swiftly  passing  youth  is 
continued  in  12"'-^ 

12^ \  Remember  now  thy  creator  in  the  days  of  thy  prime].  This 
is  as  McNeile  has  pointed  out  an  insertion  of  the  Chasid  glossator. 
As  Cheyne  has  suggested,  it  contains  exhortation  based  on  psy- 
chological principles,  for  as  age  advances  it  is  less  easy  to  remem- 
ber one's  creator  unless  it  has  been  done  in  youth.  It  is  needless 
to  point  out  how  unlike  Qoheleth  it  is.  For  efforts  to  bring  it  into 
harmony  with  his  prevailing  thought,  see  critical  note. 

1^  While  the  evil  days  come  not].  This  is  the  continuation  1 1 ' «, 
from  which  it  has  been  severed  by  the  gloss  inserted  in  i2i^  Qohe- 
leth urged: 

Put  away  vexation  from  thy  heart 
And  remove  misery  from  thy  flesh, — 
For  youth  and  prime  are  vanity, — 
While  the  evil  days  come  not,  etc. 

'^The  evil  days^^  do  not  refer  to  the  days  of  darkness  in  Sheol 
mentioned  in  1 1 «,  but  to  the  period  of  old  age  which  he  now  goes 


1 86  ^  ECCLESIASTES 

on  to  describe.  They  are  ''evil"  in  the  sense  of  ''miserable" 
because  less  full  of  pleasure  than  youth  and  prime.  This  is  the 
meaning  of  /  have  no  pleasure  in  them. 

Vvs.  2—6  have  been  variously  interpreted.  All  have  agreed  that 
the  passage  is  allegorical,  but  as  to  the  details  of  the  allegory  there 
are  wide  differences  of  opinion.  These  opinions  may  be  grouped  in 
seven  divisions,  (i)  The  verses  are  believed  to  describe  the  failing 
of  an  old  man's  physical  povi^ers,  the  various  figures  referring  to 
anatomical  details.  This  was  the  view  of  early  Jewish  commen- 
tators beginning  with  Tobia  ben  Eliezer,  and  of  many  modern 
ones.  (2)  The  verses  represent  under  the  figure  of  a  storm  an 
old  man's  approaching  death.  So,  Umbreit,  Ginsburg  and  Plum- 
tre.  (3)  The  approach  of  death  is  here  pictured  under  the  fall  of 
night.  Thus,  Michaelis,Spohn,Nachtigal  and  Delitzsch.  (4)  Mar- 
shall thinks  it  the  closing  of  a  house  at  the  approach  of  a  sirocco. 
(5)  The  passage  is  a  literal  picture  of  the  gloom  in  a  household 
when  the  master  has  just  died.  So  Taylor.  (6)  The  verses  are 
to  be  explained  by  the  "seven  days  of  death,"  or  days  of  cold 
w^intry  weather,  which  immediately  precede  a  Palestinian  spring- 
time. These  days  are  thus  named  because  they  are  peculiarly 
dangerous  to  aged  and  sickly  persons.  This  is  the  view  of  Wetz- 
stein  and  Wright.  (7)  The  verses  are  in  general  a  picture  of  old 
age,  but  one  line  of  thought  is  not  followed  throughout.  The 
metaphors  change  and  intermingle  in  accord  with  the  richness  of 
an  Oriental  imagination.  This  is  the  view  of  McNeile.  The 
last  of  these  explanations  is  but  a  slight  modification  of  the  first. 
It  seeks  to  avoid,  by  the  exercise  of  a  little  plain  sense,  the  vagaries 
to  which  excessive  zeal  for  anatomical  identification  has  led,  and 
in  so  doing  strikes  the  right  path.  Green,  Expositor  (1895), 
p.  77/".,  points  out  that  in  Icelandic  poetry  the  parts  of  the  body 
are  often  alluded  to  under  similar  figures,  and  that  such  allusions 
are  known  as  kennings. 

2.  While  the  sun  be  not  darkened,  nor  the  light  and  moon  and 
stars].  This  may  be  taken  in  two  ways:  it  may  either  refer  to 
failing  eye-sight,  so  that  the  lights  of  all  sorts  become  dim,  or  it 
may  refer  to  the  fact  that,  as  age  advances,  the  brightness  (i.e.,  the 
enjoyment)  of  life  becomes  less.     The  context  both  before  and 


FINAL  ADVICE    [Ch.  ll'-12s  187 

after  the  phrase  favors  the  latter  view.  The  speaker  says, ''  I  have 
no  pleasure  in  them,"  because  the  brightness  of  his  joy  is  decreas- 
ing. The  Talmud  (Sabbath,  152a)  explained  the  ''sun"  as  fore- 
head, "Hght"  as  nose,  "moon"  as  soul,  and  "stars"  as  cheeks. 
Haupt  explains  them  thus,  "the  sun  is  the  sunshine  of  childhood 
when  everything  seems  bright  and  happy,  the  moon  is  symbolical 
of  the  more  tempered  hght  of  boyhood  and  early  manhood,  while 
the  stars  indicate  the  sporadic  moments  of  happiness  in  mature 
age."  The  anatomical  application  is  so  far-fetched  as  to  be  ab- 
surd, Haupt's  explanation  seems  too  esoteric  to  be  probable,  and 
it  has  the  disadvantage  of  leaving  "hght"'  (which  Haupt  does  not 
erase  from  the  text)  unexplained.  Earlier  interpreters  explained 
this  "light"  to  be  "twilight"  or  "dawn"— a  period  of  Hght  when 
none  of  the  orbs  of  light  were  visible.  Such  detailed  explanations 
are,  however,  unnecessary.  The  poet  is  describing  the  lessening 
brightness  of  advancing  Hfe.  Its  characteristic  is  fading  light. 
To  express  his  thought,  he  has  with  Oriental  richness  of  imagi- 
nation and  carelessness  in  exact  use  of  metaphor  mingled  "light" 
and  the  various  orbs  of  light  in  one  figure. — For  the  clouds 
return  after  rain].  When  clouds  follow  rain  they  cut  off  brightness. 
The  frequency  of  gloomy  storms  happily  figures  the  increasing 
gloom  of  age.  Vaihinger  thought  it  referred  to  winter,  as  the  rainy 
time  or  time  of  gloom,  Palestine  having  but  two  seasons,  winter 
and  summer.  In  Palestine  the  "winter  of  life"  might  well  be 
opposed  to  our  "springtime  of  life." 

3.  In  the  day  when],  a  fuller  way  of  saying  "when,"  cf.  Ct.  8*. 
From  a  general  description  of  the  darkening  of  life's  joys  in  ad- 
vancing age,  the  poet  now  passes  on  to  picture  the  decay  of  the 
body  under  the  picture  of  a  house.  The  figure  is  loosely  used, 
perhaps  with  no  thought  that  all  its  details  were  to  be  literally 
applied  to  the  members  of  the  body,  though  the  figure  itself  is,  as 
a  whole,  appropriate  and  forcible.  Whether  the  house  is  portrayed 
as  undergoing  the  changes  described,  because  of  an  approaching 
storm,  or  because  night  has  come,  is  open  to  discussion.  Those 
who  favor  the  storm,  find  an  argument  for  it  in  the  "clouds"  and 
the  obscuring  of  all  the  heavenly  bodies  in  vs.  2..  It  is  really  un- 
wise to  press  the  figure  too  far,  either  as  a  description  of  the  decay 


1 88  ECCLESIASTES 

of  the  body,  or  the  closing  of  a  house.  In  speaking  of  the  former 
in  terms  of  the  latter,  the  poet  has  mingled  tht  features  of  the  two  in 
pleasing  and  suggestive  imagery,  which,  though  poetically  vagu'e 
in  details,-  does  not  mislead. — The  keepers  of  the  house  shall 
tremble].  The  "keepers "  correspond,  as  Ginsburg  saw,  to  the  me- 
nials or  guards  of  a  palace.  When  we  come  to  applications  to 
definite  parts  of  the  body,  there  is  more  difficulty.  Rashi  thought 
it  meant  "ribs"  and  "loins,"  Plumtre  the  "legs,"  Delitzsch  the 
"arms,"  Haupt  the  "hands."  The  last  is  probably  right. — The 
men  of  vdor  bend  themselves].  In  the  figure,  as  Ginsburg  saw, 
"men  of  valor"  are  the  superiors  of  the  house,  each  palace  con- 
taining masters  and  servants.  In  applying  the  figure  to  the  body, 
there  are  again  differences.  The  Targum  and  Plumtre  think  of 
the  "arms,"  Ra.,  Rashbam,  AE.,  Knobel,  Hitzig,  Zockler,  De- 
litzsch, Wright  and  McNeile  of  the  "legs,"  "knees,"  or  "feet," 
Haupt  of  the  "bones,"  especially  the  spinal  column.  The  refer- 
ence is  probably  to  the  legs.  See  the  description  of  the  feet  of  old 
men  in  3  Mac.  4^ — The  grinding  maids  shall  cease  because  they 
are  few].  It  is  generally  agreed  that  this  refers  to  the  teeth,  which 
are  called  "maids,"  because  grinding  in  the  East  is  usually  done 
by  women  {cf.  Is.  472  Job  3i'"  Mt.  24^1  Odyssey  20105-  loe)^ — tJiq 
ladies  who  look  out  of  the  windows].  These  are  with  much  una- 
nimity taken  to  be  the  eyes.  For  the  figure,  cf.  Ju.  s^^ff.  The 
figures  represent  the  two  classes  of  women  in  a  house — ladies  and 
serving  maids — just  as  the  two  classes  of  men  were  represented. 
— Are  dirkened],  that  is,  the  eyes  lose  their  lustre  and  their  sight. 
4.  The  doors  on  the  street  are  shut].  In  applying  this  part  of 
the  figure,  there  are  again  diversities  of  opinion.  The  Talmud, 
Ra.  and  Rashbam  thought  the  pores  of  the  skin  were  referred  to, 
the  Targum  the  feet,  AE.,  Dod.,  Ros,,  Kn.,  Ew.,  Hit.,  Vaih.,  Zo., 
Wr.  and  Sieg.  the  Hps,  which,  when  the  teeth  are  gone,  shut 
more  closely;  Kimchi,  Grotius  and  Cleric  thought  of  the  literal 
shutting  of  the  street  door,  so  that  the  old  man  could  not  go  out; 
Hengstenberg  of  the  eyes,  Lewis  of  the  eyes  and  ears,  Wildeboer 
of  the  ears,  Haupt  of  the  anus  and  bladder,  the  man  beginning  to 
suffer  from  retention  (ischuria)  and  intestinal  stenosis.  It  is 
probable  that  the  reference  is  to  the  lips,  the  figure  of  a  door  being 


FINAL  ADVICE     [Ch.  ll'-128  189 

elsewhere  applied  to  them  (see  Mi.  7*  Ps.  141^). — When  the  sound 
of  the  mill  is  low].  Again  there  are  differences  of  opinion.  The 
Talmud,  Ra.,  Rashbam  and  AE.  and  Haupt  hold  it  to  refer  to 
the  impaired  digestion;  the  Targum,  to  the  appetite;  Grotius, 
Doderlein,  Knobel  and  Hitzig  to  the  voice  of  age,  which  is  broken 
and  quavering;  Zockler  and  Delitzsch  to  the  rustle  of  the  toothless 
mouth.  The  last  is,  .perhaps,  right. — And  he  shall  rise  at  the  voice 
of  the  bird].  This  phrase  has  been  variously  translated,  and  even 
more  variously  interpreted.  Kn.,  Wr.,  Wild,  and  Ha.  think  that 
it  means  that  the  old  man  awakes  early  just  as  the  birds  begin  to 
twitter,  and  so  refers  to  the  loss  of  sleep  in  old  age;  Ew.,  Hit.,  Heil., 
Zo.,  Del.  and  PL  hold  it  to  refer  to  the  childish  treble  of  age. 
Probably  the  first  of  these  interpretations  is  the  right  one. — The 
daughters  of  song  are  prostrate].  Kn.  and  Heil.  thought  that  this 
refers  to  the  failure  of  the  old  man's  singing  voice,  which  is  lost, 
though  Kn.  held  that  possibly  it  might  refer  to  the  notes  of  birds, 
which  the  old  man  could  not  hear.  Del.,  who  is  followed  by  Wr., 
Wild.,  McN.  and  Ha.,  interprets  it  by  2  S.  19'%  where  the  aged 
Barzillai  can  no  longer  hear  the  voice  of  singing  men  and  singing 
women,  and  so  takes  the  line  to  refer  to  the  deafness  of  age.  With 
this  Ges.'^-  and  Ko.  seem  to  agree,  for  they  show  that  "daughters 
of  song"  mean  the  various  notes  of  music,  these  all  seem  low  to 
the  old  man.     The  line  accordingly  refers  to  deafness. 

5.  Also  he  is  afraid  of  a  height].  The  figure  of  the  house  is  now 
dropped,  and  four  additional  statements  of  growing  incapacity  are 
added.  Interpreters  generally  agree  that  the  reference  here  is 
to  the  shortness  of  breath  which  comes  in  old  age,  and  makes  the 
ascent  of  a  height  difficult.  For  the  rendering  ''he  fears"  instead 
of  ''they  fear,"  see  critical  note. — And  terror  is  on  the  road].  This 
is  almost  a  synonym  of  the  previous  clause.  A  walk  is  full  of 
terrors,  because  the  old  man's  limbs  are  stiff  and  his  breath  short. 
— And  the  almond-tree  blooms].  According  to  Kn.,  Ew.,  Zo.,  Wr., 
Marsh.,  Gen.,  and  Ha.,  it  is  a  poetical  reference  to  the  white  hair 
of  old  age.  The  almond-tree  blooms  in  January,  and  at  the  time 
it  has  no  leaves.  The  blooms  are  pink  at  the  base,  but  soon  turn 
white  at  the  tips,  giving  the  tree  a  beautiful  white  appearance, 
which    makes    the    landscape   in    January   and    February   most 


I  go  ECCLESIASTES 

attractive  (see  Post,  in  Hastings'  DB.,  I,  67a).  This,  then,  is  a 
natural  symbol  of  the  gray-haired  man.  It  is  used  allegorically 
by  Philo,  Life  of  Moses,  3".  Probably  this  is  the  correct  interpre- 
tation, though  others  are  urged  by  some.  Since  the  Hebrew  word 
for  almond-tree  is  derived  from  a  stem  which  means  "to  waken," 
and  that  is  the  use  made  of  it  in  Jer.  i"»,Hengstenberg  and  Plumtre 
take  it  to  mean  that  "sleeplessness  flourishes."  De  Jong,  Wilde- 
boer  and  McNeile  render  the  verb  "despised,"  and  take  it  to  refer 
to  the  old  man's  failing  appetite,  because  "the  almond  is  rejected" 
(see  critical  note).  This  view  is  not  so  probable. — The  grass- 
hopper is  burdensome].  The  rendering  "grasshopper"  is  disputed 
by  some.  Dehtzsch  and  Wildeboer,  following  the  Talmud,  render 
it  "hips"  and  the  verb  "drag  themselves  along,"  thinking  the 
phrase  a  reference  to  an  old  man's  walk.  Kn.  rendered  "breath," 
making  it  refer  to  labored  breathings.  Graetz  thought  it  a  poetical 
reference  to  coitus,  while  Moore  (JBL.,  X,  64)  thinks  that  a  melon 
instead  of  a  grasshopper  was  intended.  Of  the  interpreters  who 
translate  "grasshopper,"  Heihgstedt  understands  it  to  mean  that 
the  old  man  is  too  weak  to  cook  and  masticate  the  grasshopper  for 
food  (cf.  Mt.  3^),  Zockler  that  the  old  man's  form  is  emaciated 
like  that  of  a  grasshopper,  Plumtre  that  the  grasshopper  is  an 
emblem  of  smallness  (Is.  40-  Nu.  13^^),  so  that  the  smallest  thing 
becomes  burdensome;  Wetzstein  and  Wright,  that  the  grasshopper 
springs  up  in  the  days  when  spring  begins,  i.e.,  just  after  the  seven 
days  of  death  (see  above,  after  vs.  i),  and  Genung  takes  it  to 
refer  to  the  halting  walk  of  age — the  old  man  like  a  grasshopper 
halts  along.  Biblical  analogy  would  lead  one  to  agree  with  Plum- 
tre and  take  it  as  a  symbol  of  smallness,  though  there  is  no  reason 
to  regard  it,  as  he  does,  as  a  Greek  symbol,  and  so  to  find  an  ex- 
ample of  Greek  influence  here.  The  passage  then  means  that  the 
smallest  weight  is  a  burden,  which  the  old  man  drags  along. — The 
caper-berry  is  made  ineffectual'].  The  caper-berry  was  a  plant 
used  to  excite  sexual  appetite.  There  can  be  little  doubt  that  the 
Hebrew  word  here  used  refers  to  it,  since  it  is  the  singular  of  the 
word  which  designates  the  same  product  in  the  Talmud  (see 
Moore,  JBL.,  X,  55  ff.,  and  Ja.  5b).  Most  interpreters  rightly 
take  it  to  mean  that  stimulants  to  appetite  are  rendered  ineffectual 


FINAL  At) VICE    [Ch.  lli-128  191 

by  the  failing  of  vital  power.  Graetz,  however,  takes  "caper- 
berry"  as  a  figure  for  the  glans  penis,  but,  as  Renan  remarks, 
Qoheleth  is  never  obscene.  Wetzstein  and  Haupt,  taking  a  hint 
from  S,  connect  the  word  rendered  " caper-berry  "  with  the  Hebrew 
root  for  ''poor,"  and  think  it  a  figurative  expression  for  the  soul. 
Haupt  renders  the  word  for  ''grasshopper"  "chrysaHs,"  making 
"inert  hes  the  chrysalis,  till  the  soul  emerges."  'This  is  very  im- 
probable, though  beautiful.  For  the  rendering  "is  made  inef- 
fectual," see  critical  note. — The  man  goes  to  his  eternal  house]. 
Here  first  the  writer  speaks  of  death  itself.  "Eternal  house" 
is  a  reference  to  the  tomb;  cf.  Tobit  3*  and  the  Talmudic  and 
Coranic  usage  cited  in  crit.  note. — Mourners  go  around  the  street]. 
According  to  Hebrew  custom,  cf.  Am.  51^  Je.  91^-20. 

6.  While]  is  a  repetition  of  the  opening  word  of  vs.  ib,  and  like 
it  connects  the  thought  with  11'°,  urging  the  young  man  to  enjoy 
himself. — While  the  silver  cord  is  not  severed,  nor  the  golden  howl 
broken].  This  last  is  a  poetic  picture  of  death,  to  which  the  thought 
was  led  in  vs.  5b.  The  imagery  by  which  this  is  expressed  is,  as 
several  critics  have  seen  (PL,  No.,  Wr.,  Wild,  and  McN.),  borrowed 
from  Zc.  4--  ',  where  a  golden  bowl  fed  oil  to  the  seven  lamps. 
Here,  however,  the  golden  bowl  is,  with  that  richness  of  imagery 
common  to  the  Orient  (cf.  Pr.  25"),  represented  as  hanging  by  a 
silver  cord.  The  cord  is  severed,  the  lamp  falls,  the  bowl  is  broken 
(or  more  literally  crushed,  the  objection  that  a  golden  bowl  cannot 
be  broken,  is  without  force),  the  oil  lost  and  the  light  goes  out — a 
fit  emblem  of  the  sudden  dissolution  of  the  body  and  the  escape  of 
the  spirit.  Probably  Qoheleth  used  this  imagery  with  poetic 
freedom  w^ithout  thinking  of  special  applications  of  details,  but  it 
has  been  otherwise  with  his  commentators.  The  Targum  makes 
the  silver  cord,  the  tongue;  the  golden  bowl,  the  head;  Del.  makes 
them, respectively, the  soul  and  the  head;  Haupt, the  spinal  column 
and  the  brain. — And  the  water-jar  be  shattered  at  the  spring].  By 
another  common  figure  life  is  likened  to  a  fountain  (cf  Ps.  36^). 
That  figure  is  now  employed.  The  individual  body  is  made  the 
water-jar,  such  as  women  in  the  East  still  use  in  carrying  water 
home  (cf.  Gn.  241^-  '^  "^  Ju.  7'"  '**  ^o^-  when  the  jar  is  broken  it  can 
contain  no  more  water,  and  so  the  life  ends. — While  this  meaning 


192  ECCLESIASTES 

is  clear,  some  contend  that  the  bucket  does  not  represent  the  whole 
body,  but  soma  special  organ,  Del.,  Sieg.  and  Ha,  think  of  the  heart. 
— The  wheel  broken  at  the  cistern].  This  is  another  application  of 
the  same^figure.  Some  wells  are  fitted  up  with  a  wheel  to  assist  in 
drawing  water.  Sometimes  this  is  small  and  can  be  worked  by 
hand,  ai  that  seen  to-day  at  "Jacob's  well,"  near  Nablous,  or  on 
one  of  the  wells  at  Beersheba,  sometimes  large  enough  to  be 
worked  by  a  camel  or  a  donkey,  like  that  pictured  in  Barton's 
A  Yearns  Wandering's  in  Bible  Lands,  p.  205.  When  the  wheel  is 
broken,  the  water  can  no  longer  be  drawn.  The  "wheel"  in  this 
line  is  again  a  metaphor  for  the  whole  body.  Some,  however, 
make  a  special  application  of  the  "wheel,"  Del.  and  Sieg.  regard- 
ing it  as  symbolizing  the  breathing  process.  Haupt  thinks  its 
"breaking"  refers  to  paralysis  of  the  heart.  All  the  symbols  of 
the  verse  picture  death  as  coming  suddenly — the  lamp  is  crushed, 
the  jar  shattered,  or  the  wheel  broken. — 7.  The  dust  shall  return 
to  the  earth  as  it  was^  and  th-e  spirit  shall  return  to  God  who  gave  it\ 
As  Tobia  Ben  Eleazar  in  the  eleventh  century  and,  in  modern 
times,  Plumtre  and  Wildeboer  have  noted,  this  is  a  definite  refer- 
ence to  Gn.  2^  Qoheleth  pictures  death  as  undoing  what  the 
creative  act  of  God  had  accomplished.  Siegfried  holds  that  the 
first  clause  cannot  come  from  Q', — the  pessimist, — for  he  believed 
the  spirit  of  a  man  to  be  no  more  imrnortal  than  that  of  a  beast 
Qi9. 20)  J  he  therefore  assigns  ya  to  Q^;  yb  he  denies  to  Q^  because 
that  writer  did  not  trouble  himself  about  the  dead,  but  rejoiced 
in  life  (5'^  9*-  ''-•^  ii^ff),  and  assigns  it  to  Q%  the  Chasid  glossator. 
Such  an  analysis  makes  no  allowance,  however,  for  the  moods  of 
human  nature.  No  man's  thought — especially  the  thought  of  an 
Oriental — is  as  clear-cut  as  Siegfried  supposes.  One  may  have 
his  pessimistic  moods  in  which  he  questions  whether  anybody 
knows  whether  a  man's  spirit  differs  from  a  beast's;  he  may  hold 
that  man's  only  good  comes  from  enjoying  the  sunshine  of  this 
physical  existence,  brief  though  it  be,  and  still,  holding  Qoheleth's 
idea  of  God  (see  e.g.,  on  9'),  write  "the  spirit  shall  return  to  God 
who  gave  it."  Even  a  pessimist  mayquote  Scripture  without  read- 
ing into  it  all  the  hopes  of  an  optimist.  Qoheleth's  thought  is  not 
out  of  harmony  with  the  later  development  of  OT.  Judaism  on 


FINAL  ADVICE    [Ch.  11'-12^  I93 

this  subject  (see  Schwally,  Lehen  nach  dem  Tode,  104^.). — 8.  Van- 
ity of  vanities].  The  book  concludes  with  the  dirge  with  which 
it  opened.  Qoheleth's  concluding  sentence  reiterates  his  opening 
declaration.  He  has,  from  his  point  of  view,  proved  his  thesis  and 
closes  by  reiterating  the  sad  words  with  which  he  began:  All 
is  vanity. — Saith  Qoheleth]  is  probably  an  insertion  of  the  late 
editor,  who  added  vvs.  9,  10,  and  who  praises  Qoheleth. 

IV.  Sieg.  arbitrarily  denies  the  vs.,  as  he  does  those  which  follow,  to  Q. 
The  appropriateness  of  the  whole  passage,  with  the  exception  of  ii'"^ 
and  i2'^toQ.'s  thought,  is  too  evident  to  need  demonstration. — 2.  pSn], 
probably  Sdn  is  to  be  supplied,  cf.  BDB.  324a. — njirc'S  dji  n;'3tj'^], 
on  such  rhetorical  use  of  numbers,  cf.  Ges.^-  §1343. — "i>">  n^n"»  nn],  on 
the  form  of  expression,  cf.  Ko.  §41 4q. 

3.  ix^?'.],  Niph.,  cf.  BDB.  570a. — D'^'j]  is  to  be  taken  with  inS?:^  as 
ace.  of  material  (so  Wild.),  not  with  "ipn""  (Ha.). — 3"'3>'n],  the  mistake 
in  the  accent  of  this  word  in  the  older  printed  Bibles,  to  which  Del.  called 
attention,  has  been  corrected  in  the  texts  of  Baer,  Kittel  (Driver),  and 
Ginsburg, — Dm],  cf.  on  i«. — o^pr.]  =  loco,  cf.  Ko.  §33oky  and  337g. 
— — ^'DipD],  cf.  iJJ'N  DipD,  Ez.  613  Est. '43  8". — Nim],  on  the  root,  see 
above  on  2^.  The  root  is  nin,  used  here  as  a  synonym  of  n\-i.  The  n 
has  caused  trouble.  Wr.  regarded  it  as  an  orthographic  addition  such 
as  in  certain  cases  is  found  in  Arabic,  Ges.^-  (§75s)  would  emend  to 
■VT.  (=\-i^),  while  Bick.  and  Sieg.  would  emend  to  Nin.  One  of 
these  emendations  appears  to  be  necessary.  It  will  be  noticed  that  in 
both  the  conditional  sentences  in  this  vs.  the  imperf.  is  employed  in  both 
protasis  and  apodosis.  This  points  to  vi"'  rather  than  Nin  as  the  true 
reading  of  the  final  word.  Del.  notes  that  in  the  earlier  language  such 
conditions  would  have  employed  the  perfect  in  both  clauses,  cf.  Dr.  §12. 
— 4.  ictt'],  this  part,  and  nsn  express  the  continuity  of  the  action  =  'he 
who  habitually  watches"  .  .  .  "he  who  habitually  looks." — 5.  -\^hd] 
begins  a  correlative  sentence  as  in  Je.  19",  cf.  Ko.  §37if.  Ci  and  ^  read 
-i'i'N3,  but  that  is  evidently  a  mistake. — nn'^r^n  yo22  D'C^f^'D]  is  an 
abbreviated  comparison  ="  as  thou  art  ignorant  of  the  formation  of  the 
bones  in  the  womb,"  etc.  For  a  fully  expressed  comparison,  see  Dt. 
322. — nN^Dn],  in  the  sense  of  pregnant  woman,  occurs  nowhere  else  in 
BH.,  though  found  once  in  the  Mishna,  (Yebamoth,  16').  Assyrian  had 
the  same  usage,  thus  '^"  Istar  kima  wa/zVf="Ishtar  like  a  pregnant 
woman"  {cf.  Haupt,  Nimrod  Epos,  p.  139,  line  117,  variant).  In  Latin 
Plena  was  sometimes  used  in  the  same  sense,  see  Ovid,  Metam.  x,  465. 

Zap.,  for  metrical  reasons,  would  erase  the  word  as  a  gloss. — vn, J?"'v], 

note  the  delicate  use  of  the  part,  and  imperf.  =  " as  thou  continuously 
dost  not  know  ...  so  thou  mayest  not  know." — ST'ii'r],  40  MSS.  and 


194  ECCLESIASTES 

21  read  cti'^n,  but  that  is  an  error. — Sd  pn  nt^i  nrs]  reminds  one 
of  Am.  3^  but  the  context  shows  that  the  thought  is  not  so  general  as 
that  of  Amos. — 6.  "»p3D]  is  not  used  with  2^y  as  Kn.  thought  poetically  to 
include  all  time,  but  figuratively  for  youth. — 3"'>'^i]>  not  3"\;73,  as  some 
MSS.  of  (&.  Q.  does  not  advise  working  "in  evening,"  for  that  was 
resting-time  (cf.  Ps.  104^3),  but  rather  "till  evening,"  cf.  Job  4^°. — n:r], 
cf.  the  use  of  this  verb  in  7^.  Cf.  also  T'"v  r^-^r)  Sn  in  Jos.  10*. — nr  ^n]= 
"which  of  two"  or  more — a  late  usage  confined  to  Q.  (2^  only  besides 
this  vs.),  cf.  BDB.  32a. — "ir  in  mn\  on  this  disjunctive  question,  cf 
K6.  §379b.  Ha.,  for  metrical  reasons,  erases  the  words  as  a  gloss.  It 
is  here  a  tempting  emendation. — inx^]  occurs  only  in  late  books,  as 
Is.  6525  2  Ch.  5 13  Ezr.  2^^  39  620  jvje.  766.  It  is  an  Aramaism,  occurring 
in  Dn,  2^^,  (H  on  Gn.  i3«  and  on  Job  3128. 

7.  pinn]  is  used  of  material  substances  like  honey  (Ju.  14"  Pr.  24}^) 
and  then  figuratively  as  here  and  5",  where  it  is  applied  to  sleep. — 
■\ixn],  not  the  "light  of  life"  as  Kn.  held,  but  the  ordinary  light  of  day. 
The  expression  is  almost  identical  with  r]di>  yap  to  0u;s  (Euripides, 
Iphig.  in  Aulis,  1219). — a"'j>>;':],  "?  is  here  (as  in  i  S.  16')  pointed  with 
—  as  though  >  received  Daghesh  forte  implicitum,  but  in  Gn.  36  and  Pr. 
io26  it  is  pointed  with  j,  cf.  Baer,  p.  68. — 8.  id]  is  not  here  to  be  con- 
strued with  ON,  as  in  312  and  S^^,  but  is  =  "for,"  and  gives  the  reason  for 
the  preceding  statement  (so  Hit.  and  Del.). — nann],  an  adv.  See  on 
1I6  and  cf.  Ko.  §3i8e. — nd^'-Sd],  Del.  compares  the  expression  N^nSi  jndd 
=  "from  the  present  even  to  the  future"  (Sanhedrin,  27a),  used  for  the 
more  frequent  NaV  n\n;^S, — 9.  "Mn^j^  "chosen  one,"  regularly  used  for 
a  young  man  in  the  prime  of  manhood,  cf.  BDB.  104b. — "in'^"'],  a  late 
form  which  occurs  but  three  times  in  BH.,  here,  in  vs.  10,  and  in  Ps. 
iio^.  It  occurs  also  several  times  in  the  Talm.,  cf.  Ja.  578b.  Accord- 
ing to  its  etymology  it  should  mean  "childhood,"  but  it  is  clearly  here 
employed  of  the  time  of  life  called  Tin^,  and  accordingly  =  "youth." 
— ")a^  n^'^"''],  Del.  observes  that  in"?  3-'^^  would  have  expressed  the 
thought.  The  pleonastic  expression  is  a  sign  of  lateness. — nnin^], 
for  the  ordinary  omn^.  The  ending  ni-  is  found  in  BH.  only  here 
and  in  121.  Has  it  not  been  approximated  to  the  Aram.  n'nn3  = 
"youth"  (cf  Dalman,  Aram.-Neuhebr.  Worterhuch,  49b)?  Perhaps  it 
should  be  pointed  nnin2. — '}ir\\  the  Piel  is  not  uncommon,  cf.  Ps. 
i3i». — •'Nnca],  the  Qr.  and  some  100  MSS.  read  nN-\r;3.  It  is  difficult 
to  decide  between  the  two  readings.  ^^'^'^  occurs  in  6',  and  it  may  be 
argued  with  Gins,  that  it  has  been  changed  to  a  plural  here  to  make 
it  conform  to  ''?ii.  On  the  other  hand,  the  plural  occurs  in  Ct.  2^*  and 
Dn.  i'»,  and  it  may  be  argued  with  Eur.  that  that  was  the  original  reading, 
because  'Inid  is  so  natural  that,  if  that  had  stood  there,  no  one  would 
have  thought  of  changing  it. 

10.   D>d],  see  on  i'^. — •"'>"^],  here  not  ethical,  but  physical  evil,  hence 


FINAL  ADVICE    [Ch.  lli-I2^  195 

"misery"  or  "wretchedness." — nnnr],  not  as  Kn.  and  Hit.  held  from 
-^nc',  dawn  (c/.  ->ntt>D=  "morning,"  Ps.  iio^),  but  a  NH.  word,  from  -^nS', 
"be  black."  Such  a  root  occurs  in  Job  30*"  and  in  BS.  25'6.  It  occurs 
in  the  Talm.  (cf.  Ja.  1551),  in  Syr.  with  the  meaning="coal,"  and  in 
As.  as  KrM="coal."  This  view  is  probably  represented  by  (^,  ^, 
®,  was  held  by  Ra.,  Rashbam,  and  AE.,  and  among  recent  interpreters 
is  upheld  by  Gins.,  Del.,  Wr.,  Eur.,  Wild.,  Ha.  and  McN.  D^-\n':}  on 
this  view="time  of  black  hair,"  as  opposed  to  nn^r,  "the  time  of  gray 
hair"  or  "old  age."  Wild,  compares  the  Ar.  w/^  =  "youth,"  in  which 
the  last  two  radicals  are  reversed. — "^^n],  cf.  on  12. 

121.  -i^N->o],  many  interpreters— Kn.,  Hit.,  Gins.,  Del.,  PI.  and  Wr. — 
held  this  to  be  a  pi.  majestatis  like  dvi^'N,  D^C'ip,  etc.  The  Versions  read 
it  as  sing.,  and  Baer,  Eur.,  Ges.^-  (§i24k)  and  Sieg.  so  read  it,  though 
Dr.  and  Gins,  still  keep  the  pi.  in  their  editions  of  the  text.  The  sing, 
is  to  be  preferred.  Gr.,  who  is  followed  by  Bick.,  Che.  and  Haupt, 
emends  nxni3  to  T\u="  cistern,"  and  by  comparison  with  Pr.  518 
takes  it  to  refer  to  one's  wife.  On  this  view  the  exhortation  is  "Do  not 
neglect  thy  lawful  wife."  The  emendation,  however,  reads  into  the 
book  a  lower  note,  Davidson  has  observed  {Eccl.  in  EB.),  than  any 
which  the  book  touches.  The  one '  passage  (9')  which  seems  to  con- 
tradict Davidson's  view,  was  influenced  by  the  Babylonian  epic.  Gr.'s 
theory  does  not  commend  itself. 

2.  nS  nrN  ny],  cf.  n':'  i>,  Pr.  S^e.  The  phrase  of  Q.  borders  on  the 
idiom  of  the  Mishna,  cf.  x^e*"  i;,  Berakoth,  y.  Cf.  K6.  §3870.-3.  j?v] 
==" tremble,"  "shake,"  occurs  but  twice  beside  this  in  BH.,  Est.  5'  and 
Hb.  2^  It  occurs  frequently  in  Aram.,  cf.  Dn.  519  6^^  For  Talmudic 
references,  see  Ja.  388a. — ^)n);;nn],  cf.  on  713.— V-j:j],  a  pure  Aram, 
word  occurring  nowhere  else  in  BH.  It  is  found  in  the  Mishna  (Botah, 
99),  in  the  Aram,  of  Ezr.  4^^-  ^*  5*.  For  Talmudic  references,  see  Ja. 
157.  Cf.  also  S.  A.  Cook,  Glos.  of  Aram.  Inscr.,  p.  29,  and  G.  A. 
Cooke,  North  Sem.  Inscr.,  p.  335.— voyc],  Bick.  and  Sieg.  erase  with- 
out sufficient  reason.  The  Piel  occurs  only  here,  but  with  an  intransitive 
force,  cf.  Ges.^^-  §52k. — 4.  "'ist^'j],  the  inf.  with  3,  is  taken  by  Gins,  and 
Wr.  as  temporal,  but  Ko.  (§403a)  regards  it  as  causal.  Either  gives  a 
good  meaning. — Dip"'i],  a  jussive  form  without  a  jussive  force,  cf. 
Ges.^  §  72t. — SipS],  S  is  temporal="at  the  time  of  the  bird's  voice," 
cf.  Ko.  §33  if. —  "<ssn],  the  particular  for  the  general,  cf.  Ko.  §254!. — 
-i>a;n  mjn],  probably  the  "notes  of  song."  For  many  examples  of  the 
figurative  uses  of  p  and  P3,  see  Ges.*^-  §i28vand  Ko.  §3o6m. — 5.  n3;] 
is  a  noun,  cf.  1  S.  16^  (so  Del.).— "in->>>],  the  pi.  is  unexpected.  Kn.  re- 
garded it  as  an  example  of  the  ease  with  which  the  Heb.  passes  from 
the  sing,  to  the  pi.  Dr.  and  McN.  suggest  that  the  ")  is  a  dittograph  of 
the  following  i  "  a  probable  explanation. — o^nnnni],  this  noun  is  re- 
duplicated from  the  stem  nnn.     The  formation  is  similar  to  D^s>'i3;  = 


196  ECCLESIASTES 

eyelids.  ni'"D^D  =  baskets,  D"'^.i'^r'''c=  palm-branches,  D"'i;'i"'t'p  =  scales. — 
nsr  ],  the  stem  V'^^^"  reject,"  does  not,  in  the  opinion  of  most  in- 
terpreters, give  a  satisfactory  meaning.  Ki.  regarded  the  n  as  quiescent 
(see  Baer,  p.  69).  Del.  held  it  to  be  an  orthographic  variation  for 
VJ''i,  as  DNp  is  for  op  in  Ho.  10"  and  Vi<-\  for  en  Pr.  1323,  and  in  this 
he  is  followed  by  Ges.^^-  §73g  and  BDB.,  665a.  Dr.  would  correct  the 
reading  to  VJM. — ajn],  Kn.  connected  with  the  Ar.  hagaba,  "  to  breathe," 
Del.  and  Wild.,  following  the  Talm.,  with  the  Ar.  hagabat= caput  femoris, 
or  hip;  Moore  (JBL.,  X,  64)  connects  with  Ar.  hagb,  a  "  kind  of 
melon,"  but  most  interpreters  take  it  for  grasshopper,  as  in  Is.  4022. — 
SarDv],  28  MSS.  read  ^^'Dm.  Cf.  Dr. — "yor^^],  some  emendation  is 
necessary.  The  simplest  is  to  follow  the  Versions,  and  make  it  a 
Hophal,  as  BDB.  (p.  830b),  Dr.  and  McN.  do.  This  has  been  done 
above.  Moore  objects  that  "<"is  in  BH.  is  always  used  of  making  cov- 
enants or  judgments  ineffectual,  and  never,  in  a  physical  sense;  he  would 
accordingly  follow  'A  and  take  it  from  the  root  n-^o.  In  a  late  writer,  like 
Q.,  however,  earlier  usage  may  have  been  violated. — nr'.3N^]="  caper- 
berry,"  the  sing,  of  n^j^UN,  which  occurs  in  the  Mishna  and  Talmud 
(see  e.g.,  Ma'aseroth,  46).  So  Moore,  JBL.,  X,  55/.  and  Ja.  5b.  For 
a  description  of  the  fruit,  see  Moore.  Wetz.  and  Ha.  point  nj>"i2x  = 
"poor"  and  understand  it  as  an  epithet  of  U'dj.  Vrss.,  with  the  possible 
exception  of  S,  (T,  support  "caper-berry." — aSiy  no],  cf.  Sanhedrin, 
19a,  where  a  cemetery  is  T'^^J^  ^^"^  and  dTir  ul-huldi,  Qur'an,  412s. — 
onij  Dn]  might  be  men  as  in  Am.  s'*,  or  women  as  in  Je.  9'«-2o. — 
6.  nV  "yvn  -tv],  cf.  on  12'. — p^■^;'.],  the  Kt.  =  ^'he  put  far  away." — pHn^  the 
Qr.  =  "to  close  up,"  or  "bind,"  neither  of  which  gives  a  satisfactory 
meaning,  (i,  S*,  B,  S,  read  por.,  which  is  adopted  by  Ges.,  Ew.,  Eur., 
Sieg.,  Wild,  and  McN.,  and  has  been  adopted  in  the  rendering  given 
above. — f"*;],  ace.  to  Del.,  a  metaplastic  form  of  the  imperf.  of  Vl'"^  = 
"break"  {cf.  Gts.^-  §§67q,  6^1  and  5DB.  954b).  Sieg.,  Wild,  and  McN. 
emend  to  xnni. — pSj],  the  very  word  used  in  Zc.  42  ^.  Gins,  and  Zo. 
would  make  it  mean  fountain  {cf.  ih\  Jos.  15'*  Ju.  I's,  and  hi  Ct.  4'2), 
but  later  interpreters  have  rightly  rejected  this. — id],  a  fem.  sing.,  with 
pi.  in  D"'",  cf.  Ko.  §25 2k. — ;'i3r.]="a  fountain  opened  in  the  desert" — a 
rare  woM  occurring,  besides  in  BH.,  only  in  Is.  35^  and  491".  It  is  found 
also  in  J.Ar.,  cf.  Ja.  725a. — 7.  ar-ii],  a  jussive  form,  according  to 
Del.  it  is  suited  to  nS  -ic'S  iy  of  vs.  6  as  a  subjunctive,  according  to 
Ges.^-  §io9k  and  Ko.  §366u  it  does  not  differ  in  force  from  the  ordinary 

imperf. — nnn]=ri3j  or  norj,  cf.  Gn.  2^  Is.  42*  Job  33^ — Sk S>]  in 

late  writing  are  used  interchangeably.  Vs.  6  furnished  an  e.xample  of 
this  also.  8.  p^San  S^n],  cf.  on  12. —  nSnpn  ncx]  some  would  emend 
to  nSnp  nnDN  after  72^,  but  probably  that  passage  should  be  emended 
to  this.     On  nSnp,  see  on  i*. 


PRAISE  OF  QOHELETH    [Ch.  12^'^  I97 

129-12. — A  late  editor's  praise  of  Qoheleth,  and  of  Hebrew  Wisdom, 
to  which  is  added  a  Chasid's  last  gloss  (i2'3   n). 

129.  ^^^  besides  that  Qoheleth  was  wise,  he  still  taught  the  people 
knowledge,  and  tested  and  examined  and  arranged  many  proverbs.  ^°.  Qohe- 
leth sought  to  find  pleasant  words,  but  he  wrote  uprightly  words  of  truth. 
".  The  words  of  the  wise  are  as  goads,  and  as  driven  nails  are  the  members 
of  collections;  they  are  given  by  one  shepherd.  12^  ^^^  besides  these,  my 
son,  be  warned.  Of  making  many  books  there  is  no  end,  and  much  study 
is  a  weariness  of  the  flesh.     ^^.  End  of  discourse.     All  has  been  heard. 

FEAR  GOD  AND  KEEP  HIS  COMMANDMENTS,  FOR  THIS  IS  EVERY  MAN. 
".  FOR  EVERY  WORK  GOD  WILL  BRING  INTO  THE  JUDGMENT  CONCERNING 
EVERY   SECRET    THING,    WHETHER   GOOD    OR   BAD. 

12 ».  Besides  that  Qoheleth  was  'wise\  This  praise  of  Qoheleth 
is  unlike  anything  in  the  book,  and  sounds  as  many  interpreters, 
from  Doderlein  down,  have  noted,  like  a  later  editor.  The 
language  in  which  this  editorial  addition  is  written  differs,  if  possible, 
even  more  widely  from  Biblical  Hebrew  (see  critical  notes)  than 
the  language  of  Qoheleth. — Still  taught  the  people  knowledge], 
through  his  wise  writings. — And  tested  and  examined  and  arranged 
many  proverbs].  Probably,  as  Hitzig  and  Wildeboer  say,  this  is  a 
reference  to  our  book  of  Proverbs,  which  the  editor  attributed  to 
Qoheleth,  whom  he  identified  with  Solomon. — 10.  Qoheleth  sought 
to  find  pleasant  words].  He  tried  to  give  his  composition  a  pleas- 
ing or  elegant  form.  This  is  also  a  part  of  the  editor's  testimony 
to  Qoheleth-Solomon.  He  claims  that  Qoheleth  sought  to  give 
literary  finish  to  his  compositions. — But  he  wrote  uprightly  words 
of  truth].  He  never  sacrificed  matter  to  form.  Perhaps  this  is  the 
editor's  apology  for  some  of  the  statements  in  the  book  before  us. 
For  a  justification  of  the  above  translation,  see  critical  note. — 
11.  The  words  of  the  wise  are  as  goads].  They  prick  and  stimulate 
to  activity.  Plumtre  recalls  that  the  words  of  Pericles  were  said 
to  have  a  sting. — As  driveii  nails].  It  is  difficult  to  tell  whether 
the  editor  is  thinking  of  the  appearance  of  written  words  in  a  row, 
like  a  row  of  driven  nails,  as  Delitzsch  suggests,  or  whether  he  is 
thinking  of  the  permanent  effect  of  a  written  word  embodied  in  a 
collection  in  comparison  with  the  goad-like  effect  of  a  spoken 
word.     The  latter  seems  the  more  probable.     Haupt  contends  that 


igS  ECCLESIASTES 

the  contrast  here  is  between  disjointed  sayings,  such  as  the  book 
of  Proverbs,  and  more  connected  thought  such  as  is  contained  in 
Qoheleth's  book — a  less  probable  view. — Members  of  collections]. 
Utterances  that  have  been  embodied  in  a  collection  of  sayings.  For 
the  translation  and  for  different  renderings,  see  the  crit.  note. — 
They  are  given  by  one  shepherd].  Haupt,  for  metrical  reasons,  re- 
gards these  words  as  a  gloss,  but  there  is  no  proof  that  the  editor 
attempted  to  write  poetry,  and  the  words  seem  a  natural  part  of  his 
thought.  The  ''one  shepherd "  was  thought  by  Heiligstedt  to  refer 
to  Qoheleth,  and  by  Delitzsch  and  McNeile  to  Solomon.  This 
makes  it  an  assertion  that  all  the  contents  of  the  preceding  book  (or 
books)  come  really  from  Solomon.  As  Knobel,  Ginsburg,  Plumtre, 
Wright  and  Wildeboerhave  seen, "Shepherd"  in  the  OT.  is  usually 
an  epithet  of  God  (Ps.  23'  80'  95',  cf.  Is.  40"  Ez.  ^y^),  and  is  prob- 
ably so  here.  On  this  view  the  editor  means  to  say,  the  words  of 
the  wise  may  be  uttered  by  different  men,  but  they  all  come 
from  God.  Krochmal,  who  is  followed  by  Graetz,  thought  that 
the  last  three  verses  of  the  book  applied  not  to  Qoheleth  alone,  but 
were  the  closing  words  of  the  whole  Hagiographa,  dating  from  the 
council  of  Jabne,  A.D.  90.  If  this  were  true,  one  would  be  tempted 
to  include  the  book  of  Job  in  the  'Svords  of  the  wise,"  to  which 
allusion  is  made  here,  but  external  evidence  proves  Krochmal's 
view  to  be  impossible,  see  above.  Introduction,  §§ii,  13. — 12.  And 
besides  these].  Besides  these  inspired  words  of  the  wise,  just  re- 
ferred to  in  the  preceding  vs. — My  son],  a  common  address  to  a 
pupil  in  the  Wisdom  literature,  see  Pr.  i»  i"  ^^  2'  3'  ^  21  4'. — Be 
warned].  This  refers,  as  the  following  clause  proves,  to  other  col- 
lections of  books  than  ''the  words  of  the  wise,"  described  in  the 
preceding  vs.  Interpreters  differ  as  to  whether  the  editor  was 
warning  against  heathen  writings  (so  Plumtre),  or  against  rival 
Jewish  writings,  such  as  Ecclesiasticus  (so  Wright),  or  the  Wis- 
dom of  Solomon.  If  our  view  of  the  history  of  Qoheleth's  wTiting 
be  true  (see  above,  Introduction,  §§7,  11),  references  to  BS.  and 
Wisdom  would  be  here  impossible. — Of  making  many  books  there 
is  no  end];  a  continuation  of  the  warning  against  other  literature. 
Possibly  the  writer  was  thinking  of  heathen  libraries  when  he  com- 
posed this  hyperbolical  statement. — Much  study  is  a  weariness 


PRAISE  OF  QOHELETH    [Ch.  129-i2  199 

of  the  flesh].  This  is,  perhaps,  suggested  by  Qoheleth's  own  words 
in  I '8.  The  editor  would  deter  his  pupil  from  unorthodox  or 
heathen  literature  by  the  thought  of  the  weariness  of  study. 
13^  End  of  discourse],  the  end  of  the  book. — All  has  been  heard]. 
These  words  probably  formed  the  conclusion"  of  the  editor's 
work,  and  once  formed  the  end  of  the  book. 

13^.  Fear  God  and  keep  his  commandments].  These  begin  the 
Chasid  glossator's  final  addition.  It  is  in  harmony  with  his  pre- 
vious insertions,  cf.  y  8«  11 9^.  This  is  every  tnan].  A  Hebrew 
metaphorical  way  of  saying,  ''this  is  what  every  man  is  destined 
for  and  should  be  wholly  absorbed  in."  For  parallels,  see  crit. 
note. — 14.  For  every  work  God  will  bring  into  the  judgment  concern- 
ing every  secret  thing].  This  echoes  the  words  of  the  Chasid  in  1 1 ». 
With  this  note  of  judgment  the  book,  as  the  Chasid  left  it,  closes. 
The  Massorets  thought  the  ending  too  harsh,  and  accordingly  re- 
peated vs.  13  after  it,  to  make  the  book  close  with  a  more  pleasant 
thought.  They  made  similar  repetitions  at  the  end  of  Isaiah, 
the  Minor  Prophets  and  Lamentations. 

129.  -,ri>]  was  taken  by  Heil.,  Zo.  and  Dale  to  mean  "as  to  the  rest," 
or  "it  remains"  (to  speak  of).  The  word  is,  however,  an  adv.  as  in 
215  yi6.  In  those  passages  it  means  "excessively,"  here,  "besides," 
cf.  5DB.  452b.  This  approaches  the  Mishnic  meaning  of  "additional," 
given  to  a  kindred  form,  see  Ja.  605a. — "'pS]  Piel  with  causative  force 
of  -\dS=  "to  learn,"  cf.  BD5.  It  takes  two  objects,  cf.  Ko.  §327r. — oyn]. 
(S,  A,  read  o-iNn,  which  Gr.  preferred. — {tn]  was  connected  by  the  Ver- 
sions with  t.?N="ear,"  either  as  noun  or  verb.  It  is  in  reality  the  only 
survival  in  BH.  of  jrN  =  "to  weigh"  {cf.  Ar.  wazan),  from  which  comes 
CJTNC^ "scales."  Here  it  seems  to  mean  "weigh"  in  the  sense  of 
"test"  (cf.  Ges.Bu-  p.  23a  and  BDB.  24b). —  ■>^n]="to  search  out," 
occurs  in  Piel  only  here.  Zap.  would  erase  it  on  metrical  grounds  as  a 
gl. — |[pn]  is  used  by  Q.  only  in  the  sense  of  "making  straight  the 
crooked,"  cf.  i^*  713.  Here  it  means  "set  in  order,"  "arranged,"  as  in 
the  Targ.  and  Tal.  (cf.  Ja.  1692).  This  difference  from  the  usage  of 
Qoheleth  confirms  our  suspicion  that  the  verse  is  from  a  later  editor. 
—  'i3in],  on  the  use  of  this  word  with  nouns,  see  Ko.  §3i8e.  d  takes 
it  with  the  following  vs.- — 10.  yon  n3"<]="  words  of  pleasure,"  i.e.,  that 
give  pleasure.  Ha.  is  right  in  thinking  that  it  refers  to  elegance  of  form. 
Marsh. 's  rendering,  "words  of  fact,"  on  the  ground  that  I'sn  in  Q.= 
"matter,"  "business,"  overlooks  the  fact  that  in  this  very  chap.  (121) 
van  =" pleasure." — '■^^^^'}]    (B=Kai    yeypa/x^vov,   supports    this    reading. 


200  ECCLESIASTES 

Ginsburg  held  that  the  pass,  part.,  when  it  follows  a  finite  vb.,  has  the 
distinction  of  that  vb.  implied.  Del.,  PL,  Wr.,  held  to  the  text,  taking  it 
in  the  sense  of  "writing"  as  in  2  Ch.  30*,  but  this  makes  a  harsh  and 
awkward  sentence.  Hit.  emended  to  ^''^^,  and  thought  the  inf.  abs. 
was  used  like  inf.  const,  after  c*pj;  Bick.  and  Sieg.  emend  to=3'.i37:, 
making  it  parallel  to  sxn7  in  form  as  Hit.  did  in  thought.  McN. 
emends  to  ai.Tpi,  taking  it  as  "writing."  &,  E,  'A,  U,  read  J-p;  (hist, 
inf.)  or,  as  5  MSS.  read,  3?7,  to  one  of  which  we  should,  with  Dr.,  emend 
the  text. — ^"<u'],  as  Wr.  and  Wild,  have  seen,  is  an  adverbial  ace,  cf. 
Ges.'^-  §ii8m. — r^vn],  cf.  for  the  meaning  Ps.  132". — 11.  '"ijj^  ]  oc- 
curs only  once  besides  in  BH.,  that  in  i  S.  13^',  a  hopelessly  corrupt 
passage  (cf.  Budde,  SBOT.,  and  Smith,  Inter.  Crit.  Com.).  As  this 
last  occurrence  may  be  due  to  late  editing  in  S.,  and  as  the  word  is  fairly 
common  in  Aram.  {cf.  Ja.  320b),  and  the  formation  is  an  Aram,  one, 
the  word  is  probably  an  Aram,  loan  word  (see  5DB.  201b).  It  is  from 
a"(T=  "to  train "  {cf.  Ar.  dariba,  Eth.  darhaya).  id'7D,  from  nnS,  is  often 
used  in  Heb.  for  "goad." — nncrr.]  is  spelled  elsewhere  nncDr,  c/".  Je.  10* 
2  Ch.  39  and  D^^r.D,-Is.  41^  i  Ch.  223,  sing.  n:^p;,  see  Sabbath,  6io,  Kelim, 
12^,  and  the  references  in  Ja.  809a.  Wild,  regards  it  as  an  Aram,  loan 
word,  but  inasmuch  as  it  is  found  in  Je.  and  Is.^  that  can  hardly  be. 
— >vjj],  usually  "plant,"  as  of  trees,  etc.,  but  in  Dn.  ii«  of  tent-pegs, 
as  here  of  nails. — '7;'3],  not  "masters  (of  assemblies),"  nor  "masters 
(of  collections),"  but  as  Del.  pointed  out="a  participant  of,"  as  in  Gn. 
1413  and  Ne.  6'8,  cf.  Ko.  §3o6g.  As.  has  the  same  use  of  the  word,  cf 
bel  adi  u  mamit  sa  ""^^"Assur'^'=  "  participator  in  the  covenant  and  oath 
of  Assyria,"  Sennacherib,  Taylor,  Cyl.  II.  70. — ~'''£p^],  a  late  word  found 
elsewhere  only  in  Ne.  12^5  and  i  Ch.  26'5  n,  and  there  masc.  In  those 
passages  it  refers  to  collections  of  people;  here,  according  to  Heil.,  Del., 
Wr.,  Gen.,  Ha.  and  McN.,  to  a  collection  of  sayings  or  a  written  work. 
Sieg.  still  holds  to  the  older  and  less  probable  view  that  it  refers  to  an 
assembly  of  people. — 12.  ^^y],  adv.  as  in  vs.  9,  but  here  with  the  addition 
of  J?:=  English:  "in  addition  to  these."  According  to  Ko.  (§3o8f)  it  is 
=  plus  quam. — .^vj*;'],  with  its  object,  is  the  subject  of  the  sentence,  cf. 
Ko.  §233d.  (S  apparently  read  niC7S. —  sp  i-'n]  is  virtually  an  adj.= 
.  "endless,"  like  W  j\v  in  Dt.  32\  so  Del.-^J'i'7]=  with  r\i-\7\^  to  "de- 
vote oneself  to  prolonged  study,"  is  a.X.  Analogy  is  found  only  in  the 
Ar.  lahiga=  "be  devoted  (or  attached)  to  a  thing."  Cf.  No.,  ad.  loc.  and 
BDB.  529b.— 13a.  n:3n  t^D]  is  an  Aramaism.  Cf.  piDis  t]\o.  fjiD  oc- 
curs in  a  few  late  writings — Jo.  (220),  Chronicles  and  Qoheleth  in  the 
sense  of  xp  {cf.  BDB.  693a),  but  is  the  regular  word  in  J.Ar.  {cf.  Dn. 
48.  19  728^  and  for  post-Biblical  references,  Ja.  968a).  The  use  of  13t 
without  the  art.  shows  that  we  cannot  here  translate  "the  end  (or  con- 
clusion) of  the  matter."  It  is  probably  a  technical  expression  like  1iD 
piDs,   with    which    the    editor    marked   the  end    of    his    work.     This 


PRAISE  OF  QOHELETH     [Ch.  129-1'-  201 

expression  makes  the  impression  that  when  these  words  were  penned,  the 
Chasid's  gloss  had  not  been  added,  and  these  words  formed  the  con- 
clusion of  Qoheleth.  Cf.  Ko.  §27 7 v. — ^;'nc'j].  Gr.  and  Sieg.  hold  that 
(S  read  >"?^',  and  Sieg.  would  so  emend  the  text,  but  Eur.  points  out 
that  &Kov€  may  be  an  itacism  for  dKoiyerat,  so  that  no  other  reading  is 
necessarily  pre-supposed.  ycrj  is  taken  by  Gins.,  Del.,  Wr.,  Marsh., 
and  McN.  as  perf.  Niph.,  Kamef  being  due  to  the  Athnah.  Wild. 
and  Ha.,  among  recent  interpreters,  still  regard  it  as  an  imperf.  first  pers. 
cohortative.  There  is  an  evident  reference  to  this  final  word  of  Qo.'s 
editor  in  BS.  432':  ^>jn  Nin  13-1  xpi  IDi:  nS  hVnd  ni;'.  This  quotation 
confirms  our  view  that  when  it  was  made  the  Chasid  gl.  had  not  yet 
been  added. 

IS**.  onNH  So  n:],  as  Del.,  No.,  Wr.  and  McN.  have  seen,  can  only  mean 
"this  is  every  man."  As  Del.  pointed  out,  it  is  a  bold  metaphor  like 
nmj  •]::>  =  "thy  people  are  a  free-will  offering,"  Ps.  iio^,  n7sn  >jn  = 
"I  am  prayer,"  Ps.  109^,  and  msn  >j3  .i-\p?:=:"fate  are  the  children  of 
men,"  Qo.  31^. — D-isn  "73  can  only  mean  "every  man,"  cf.  3'^  518  72, — 
14.  E3orD3  N2']  are  the  very  words  used  by  the  Chasid  in  ii^. — •^JDC'Do], 
without  the  article,  as  Gins,  saw,  is  further  defined  by  'jSoS"="the 
judgment  concerning  every  secret  thing."  (So  Del.,  Wr.  and  McN.) 
Cf.  Je.  2'*. — ^^\i],  McN.  observes,  has  Daghesh  in  ■?  to  insure  the  pro- 
nunciation of  the  quiescent  guttural;  it  occurs,  however,  in  i  K.  lo^ 
without  Daghesh.     On  on on],  cf.  Ko.  §37 ir. 


INDEXES. 


INDEXES. 


I.     HEBREW   INDEX. 


■'^N,   104. 
S0N,I42, 

njmN,  52,  196. 
mx,  33,  148,  167. 
nooanN,  33,  131. 
niN,  194. 
f«<,  93- 

•)D>  IN,  32. 

n.^*,  199- 

nns,  93,  118. 
rnN,  89. 
-2  ma,  144. 
riDsnx,  147. 
nnnN,  142. 
D"'jnnN,  76,  122. 
>N,  52,  178. 
nr  >N,  194. 
n>N,  94. 
i'?^x,  118. 

rx,  106, 145. 

ti^nn  Sd  r»<,  75- 
VP  fx,  200. 
ni  li^N,  53. 
ic'na  Son,  132. 
-\t'2  Sdn,  117. 

i^»<,  135- 
2h  Sn,  141. 
-i^;;Sn,  178. 
nnxn  Sn,  125. 
mpD  Sn,  73. 
o>nD  Sn,  160. 

DX,  134. 

-iDx,  88,  III,  148. 
-h  n:3x,  158,  169,  196. 


PDX,  200. 

"'jx,  86,  88,  92,  152. 
DniDN,  121.     . 
n'lspN,  200. 
nx,  92. 
nn  i-ix,  142. 
D>c>  inx,  145. 
"^5^^*,53,89,ii7>i37,i38, 
150,  166,  178. 

XV  -IC-N,   145. 

nrnS  -(U'N,  107. 
nirx,  178. 

-3,  125,  131,   132,  143, 
178,  196. 

»<^,  73- 

irx3,  168. 

"iiJ*x3,  141,  152,  160. 

Sn3,  152. 

xo,  113,  201. 

n^xnn,  195. 

r\>M2,  168. 

mnj,  194. 

pniJj,  161. 

'roj,  195. 

oSiy  no,  196. 

?3:>,  155- 
>3Sa,  88. 
X1S2,  177. 

yS3,   177. 

iiij'n  n"ij3,  195. 
amn  p,  178. 
no  ""ja,  90. 

205 


'?J?3,  131,  132,  177,  179, 

200. 
•'Syj,  200. 
Ssa,  143. 
i^'p3,  104. 
•yp2,  194. 
ni3n3,  89, 

-?3,  53,  94. 

nrx  Sr3,  158. 

D-iPJ,  89. 

naj,  142. 
D-inaj,  130. 
naj,  178. 
mj,  176. 
ymi,  52,  176. 
Sn,  130. 
phi,  196. 

DJ,     93,     118,     122,      135, 

145,    169- 

Sx D5,  179, 

DXD),  158. 
^JX  DJ,  93. 
P,  89. 

nnyj,  142. 
;7-ij,  106. 

nm,  75,  142. 
■^2n,  75,  145. 
Vsn  •'-I2n,  199. 
on^-i,  137. 
yn  nan,  152. 
aS  d;'  \nn3i,  86. 
r^  137- 


2o6 


INDEX 


nS-i,  179. 

nj;m,  116. 
n>?"i,  87. 

mj2->"i,  52,  200. 
Di-n,  74. 
nm,  169. 

-n,  112/. 

IN -n,  94. 

Dnxn,  113,  135. 
inNH,  118. 
•72.1,52,  72,  158. 
TiflDini  TiSnjn,  86. 
Nin,  32,  87,  96,  106,  141, 
166. 

"I'"",  95,  193- 

inSin,  141. 

niSVin,  54,  87. 

>nn,  141. 

N>n,  17,  133,  148,  166. 

'■''•■',   75,   90,    106,    107, 

117,  177. 
>n>>n,  85. 
ijirn  iS>n,  32. 

'?>"'»33,93,i45,  158, 179- 
n^'C'on,  177. 

n'^^  73,  135,  136,  155- 

€'Qi  i^n,  2^,  168. 

SSn,  88,  142. 

onS  non,  112. 

-\Dn,  169. 

n^nn,  86,  90,  168,  199. 

J"in,  104. 

"•jc^n,  118. 

DDnnn,  145. 

1,  in  apodosis,  158. 
yi<y\  196. 
S:jnD"«i,  196. 

o^V'\  33,  138. 
n^DB^M,  155. 
nNii  nnu'i,  106. 

niD  013?,  168. 

^h  75,  87,  135,  201. 


^f,  53,  96,  167. 

HT  1N  HT,  194. 

^f ^h  135- 

■1■■^^  53. 

DIN  Vd  nr,  201. 

^1^  195- 

?113»,  76. 
IDT,  103. 

n^n,  104,  117. 

3jn,  196. 

mn,  179. 

Ntain,  168. 

nt?in,  97. 

nSin,  132. 

rn  r^n,  97. 

amn,  52,  178. 

rin,  97. 

N'on,  125. 

nion,  168. 

^n,  141. 

D^>n,  135,  166. 

D^Sin,  177. 

□3n,  145,  147,  151. 

HDon,  177. 

□iVn,  125. 

y-i  ^Sn,  134. 

pSn,  113,  193. 

P,  177- 

"^D?,  134- 

inon,  86. 

D-'jfln,  118. 

rijn,  103,  125,  131. 

ipn,  199. 

'^?'^",  53- 

V^'^'^,  52,  53,  149- 

mjDU'n,  148  _/. 

DTinnn,  195. 

2110,89,96,121,  131,  143- 
nc>  -iii^s  aito,  S3,  52,  132. 
njita,  135,  141. 

nC'ND  31D,  113. 


ITN^  95. 

j;o>,  168. 
i^J^.  179- 
P\  178. 
nj-i^  145. 
Ti%  166. 
yn>,  134,  146. 
SVin^,  142. 
QWpv,  167. 
liS  13^£a>,  194. 
2D»,  141. 
-iS>,  121,  141. 
n*?.;.,  103,  121. 
ni'i'^S  52,  53,  194- 
^^'^\  155- 
San  ^D>,  145. 

rn%  169. 
ic>,  178. 
10%  106. 
nfl>,  105. 

^^\  53,  145- 

dSd  dn  nx>,  S3' 

Dip^,  195. 
-\p\  168. 

Nn%  195. 

5^%  75,  134. 

xiB^;,  151/. 

-\c'%  200. 

nn-i,  94,  199,  200. 

inn%  54,  72,  105,  132. 

-2,  143,  151,  152,  156, 

158,  160,  193,  194. 
tHND,  194. 

IC'ND,   17,   152,   158,    160, 

193- 
"132,  52,  75,  93. 
12,  196. 
a2nn2,  151. 
n2,  166/. 

DS  '•2,  106,   156. 
DJO,  121,  156,   158. 

^^,  33,  93,  145,  158,  169, 
179. 


OMi  '?3,  133. 

-u  ncy  Vo,  132. 
N'lB'  V:),  194. 
^'^y  ]^,  155- 

DJD,  90. 
D^SJD,  179. 

n3T  D''Vdo,  124. 

']DD,  131. 

d;'o,  87,  96,  133,  142. 

'  ''",  143,  156. 
-fo,  169. 

IC'D,  177. 

P"^^'^,  95,  117,  131- 

SlDHU'D,   167. 

2^^^D,  199/. 

-^,  161,  169,  179. 
2h,  86,  87,  169. 
3VJ  jS,  166. 
n^^,  148. 
jnS,  200. 
nuonS,  86. 
N>anS,  125. 

"iS  155. 
c^nS,  177. 
nyaS,  103  /. 
mSV,  103. 
hdS,  94. 

rc-s,  132. 

idS,  199. 
npi?),  143. 

PJJ''?,  177- 
IpnS,  17,  86. 

HND,  134. 

nnixD,  143. 

VDC'  ii'"'N?:,  142. 

Sn  ;?>jd,  156. 

j;nD,  94. 

njHD,  52,  90,  130. 

3;tD,  52,  179. 

nc,  113,  142,  193. 

DIN  HD,  92. 

-r^°.  75- 

n>nc*nr:,  33,  147/. 


INDEX 

'^'^mD,  88. 
D^oSn?:,  122. 
ann,  92. 
niriD,  119. 

NX1D,  150. 

d>n:3ic,  155. 
D^V^Doa  Vu'ic,  168. 
nma,  112. 
HDon?:,  142. 
^^2,  S3,  131- 
•^•'^'^  'J^,  53,  160/. 
d-'hSn-t  n^c,  96. 
d>3nd::,  96. 
IDD,  178. 
nSd,  74,  118,  160. 

3*?  nSd,   156. 

hnVd,  193. 
InVd,  125. 
taSn,  167. 

1*70,  152,  178,  179. 
Snj  nSj2,  167. 
Sn-\c'>  S;?  li'^i:,  85. 
inoS::,  121. 
nj::,  86. 
>rjsS?:,  76. 

P»  75>  96,  142. 
nr,  92. 

rc"?,  176. 

pDO,   121,    167. 
ISDC,  89,  133,  137. 

nj;;?:,  86. 

^}}T2,  195. 

"■ii?'2,  33,  52,  133- 
nt';?c,  117,  156  ws. 

NXD,  167. 

onixD,  149,  167. 
nxixr,  167. 
^'^'^J^,  53,  136,  194. 
DipD,  74,  135,  192. 
irnp  2ip^,  155. 

SSps,  145. 

^7i7P,  32,  90,  93,  112. 

^;?i"^p,  178. 

a>cno,  176. 


207 


rnn,  167. 
Ni3"iD,  176. 
nnciJ'D,  200. 
na^D,  88/. 

J^B'C,  179. 

i^^Vb'd,  119. 
nnStj'r!,  152. 

;7DC^D,  75. 

jooc'n,  130,  201. 
nnu-:D,  141. 
njnn,  142. 

PIHD,  194. 

njj,  179. 
jnj,  89. 
nu,  142,  176. 
iSu,  121. 
"inrj,  121. 

HDDPJ,   142. 

Snj,  74. 
SSp  ns^^nj,  177. 
rnj,  135,  168. 
r^3,  io3jf,  200. 

D^D3J,  52,  133,  134. 
'\Di,  134. 
HDJ,  88. 
>DJ,   176. 

D*?;:;.,  201. 
■^yj,  178. 
ntr>'j,  155. 
li'sj,  135,  156. 

rxj,  196. 
ii^j,  107. 

TC':,  176. 

>?cu*j  201. 

D^>-crj,  168. 

rnj,  86,  97,  124,  142. 

P'^J,  153- 

03D,  95,  167. 

nVjD,  90. 
Sjd,  196. 

3310,  74. 
11D,  105,  200. 

n^n  niD,  200. 


208 


INDEX 


DnfjiD,  196. 

3itonvi7,  32,  106. 

DniD,  121. 

□"ixy,  90. 

D>-^>D,  142. 

cv^'^xy,  178. 

Sdd,  95,  169,  176,  196. 

pz'-;,  142. 

mSoD,  53,  89. 

D>Rr>;,  116. 

pD,  52,  177. 

n-^^V,  145. 

IflD,  104. 

Dnv^7,  176. 

ny,  144. 

-^r;,  131/. 

-^^h  158. 

pjo,  167. 

■<?V,  131/. 

>s,  135,  152,  177. 

nrx  n;;,  89. 

njs,  92. 

nS  n-^'N  n;?,  53,  195. 

D-'JO,   177. 

nnj?,  117. 

D^?:yfi,  135,  146. 

']y;,  179. 

Dn^D,  32,  52,  89. 

m;-,  86,  143. 

r-\D,  104. 

»>',  145- 

nt's,  52,  151. 

D">Jfl  T>*,  151. 

2JnD,  33,  52,  154. 

a^rj?,  194. 

^^y   143- 

n^j7,  167,  178. 

hy,  86,  106,  III. 

]is"i,  74. 

ha..   ..  Sy,  196. 

■^3^,  195- 

n-\anSj?,  m. 

-B^  n-i3T  Vy,  52,  143. 

a^jDip,  76. 

••s  S;?,  125. 

'•^^■JP,  67/.,  148,  196. 

-ir  nD;;S>',  52,  132. 

Sip,  142. 

^^h  105- 

aip,  195- 

o'?i',  72,  105. 

•■^v'l:,  177- 

o^o'^V,  75/. 

]rop,  167. 

oy,  93,  122. 

HNjp,  117. 

ID?,  73,  92,  122. 

nip,  90. 

n-iDV,  73. 

anp,  52,  124,  168. 

pD;r,  148. 

^J>',  33,  133,  179. 

nsn,   87,   88,    113,    116, 

vy^,  52, 85. 

134,  142,  167,  176. 

3SJ?,  177- 

nsn,  167,  176. 

Q^my,  193. 

D-'JU'N-l,  76. 

any,  194. 

^2^,  134. 

^^V,  32,  33,  75,  85,  88, 

D01,  176. 

93,  105,  106,  116,  155, 

^jn,  17,  124. 

200. 

Il-t,   107. 

urh  ntt'j?,  179. 

nn,  85,  176,  196. 

iniiJ7,  93- 

npn,  168. 

niu7,  200. 

pr\-y,  196. 

y^  141. 

Sd3  yi,  160. 

'?;?  P"^,  94. 

ny'\,  132,  177,  193,  194/. 
r^V^  53,  85. 
]vyn,  96. 

rx-i,  196. 

■ipn,  104. 
VB'"*,  III. 
pn-i,  196. 

j?3ii',  134. 
n-iB',  131. 
pnr,  179. 
D-'r,  III. 
ni't'^ii',  53,  87. 
SxDt:',  169. 
nnr,  92,  179. 
nincc',  177. 

-?,  53,  72/,  96,   106, 
112,119,134,169,176, 

177,  178,  194. 
SNr,  92. 
"■"y  Sxr,  142. 
ViNr,  167. 
HNv^,  73. 
noB',  52,  94,  116. 

DJir,  87. 

njjr,  176. 
nj.'3B',  193. 
niy3B^  152. 
nnri  nir,  91^. 
n^-^nnr,  137. 
nnnr,  195. 
Ss^u-,  119. 
ptoVc',  52,  53,  151. 
ja>Sir,  152. 
"iW,  104. 

or,  74,  III,  134,  141. 
ncr,  III. 
njicr,  193. 
.  V?3r,  75,  168,  201. 


INDEX 


209 


■^c*^',  193. 
^n-^,  134. 
njc'  (noun),  134. 
njtt^  (verb),  151  #. 
''W,  32,  118,  122. 
nun  D^jir,  134. 


^fi*^,  195- 
^I'^oc',  53,  179. 

nin,  85. 

nSnn,  176. 

B'DC'n  nnp,  32,  73. 


ncn,  131. 

nuijyn,  91. 

isn,  104,  196. 

Ipn,  17,  52,  86,  143, 199. 

nvri,  52,  137, 

ODic'n,  145. 


II.     INDEX   OF  PERSONS. 


ACOKA,  27. 

Adam,  James,  42. 

Albert,  Georg,  42. 

Albrecht,  K.,  155,  178. 

Alexander  Balas,  30,  61,  119/".,  174. 

Alexander  Jannseus,  3,  29. 

Alexander  the  Great,  43,  59. 

Antiochus  III,  61  jf.,  120^.,  164. 

Antiochus  IV  (Epiphanes),  29,  61. 

Antiochus  V,  164. 

Antiochus  VII,  164. 

Aqiba,  Rabbi,  5,  17,  167. 

Aquila,  11,  17. 

Aristophanes,  74. 

Aures,  A.,  42. 

Bacon,  B.  W.,  183. 

Baer,  S.,  8,  and  Comm.  passim. 

Ben  Buta,  3. 

Ben  Sira,  2,  53,  59  ff.,  and  Comm. 

passim. 
Bennett,  W.  H.,  22. 
Berger,  S.,  15. 
Bevan,  E.,  R.,  63,  121. 
Bickell,  G.,  22,  2$ff.,  32,  and  Comm. 

passim. 
Bloch,  J.  S.,  3. 
Bomberg,  Daniel,  2. 
Breasted,  J.  H.,  151. 
Briggs,  C.  A.,  6,  7,  22^.,  and  Comm. 

passim. 
Burkitt,  F.  C,  9,  11. 

Caird,  Edward,  42. 
Catullus,  174. 
Cheyne,  T.  K.,  22,  185. 
Ciasca,  A.,  13. 
Cicero,  114,  174. 
Clement  of  Alexandria,  7. 
Collitz,  Hermann,  89. 
Cook,  S.  A.,  178,  195. 
Cooke,  G.  A.,  32,  86,  195. 


■Cornill,  H.,  22^.,  44,  59,  61. 
Cowley,  A.  E.,  7. 
Cox,  Samuel,  22. 

Dathe,  J.  A.,  21,  and  Comm.  pas- 
sim. 

Davidson,  A.  B.,  22,  59,  and  Comm. 
passim. 

De  Jong,  P.,  190. 

Delitzsch,  Franz,  22,  and  Comm. 
passim. 

Desvoeux,  A.  V.,  50. 

De  Wette,  W.  M.  L.,  22. 

Dhorme,  Paul,  163. 

Dillmann,  A.,  9. 

Dillon,  E.  J.,  22,  26,  27. 

Doderlein,  J.  C,  21,  and  Comm. 
passim. 

Driver,  S.  R.,  8,  22,  51,  and  Comm. 
passim. 

Dupuis,  J.,  42. 

EiCHHORN,  J.  G.,  21,  23. 

Eleazar  ben  Azariah,  5. 

Epicurus,  38^. 

Eshmunazer,  32. 

Euringer,  Sebasiian,  14,  and  Comm. 

passim. 
Euripides,  34. 
Ewald,    H.,    22,    51,    and    Comm. 

passim. 
Ewing,  William,  183. 

Field,  F.,  ii,  13. 
Frederick  William  IV,  83. 
Frey,  J.,  109. 
Friedlander,  M.,  34,  164. 

Gamaliel,  3. 

Genung,  J.  F.,  22,  31,  61,  and 
Comm.  passim. 


2IO 


INDEX 


Ginsburg,  C.  D.,  6,  8,  17,  22/.,  32, 

and  Comm.  passim. 
Gottheil,  R.  J.  H.,  15. 
Graetz,   H.,   9,    22,   24  /.,   Z2>^  and 

Comm.  passim. 
Gregory,  C.  R.,  10,  27. 
Gregory  bar  Hebraeus,  171. 
Gregory  of  Nyssa,  20. 
Gregory  Thaumaturgus,  20. 
Grenfell,  B.  P.,  27,  172. 
Grimme,  Hubert,  39,  162. 
Grotius,  Hugo,  21,  22. 
Guyan,  M.,  42. 

Harnack,  Adolf,  13,  20. 

Harris,  J.  R.,  5. 

Haupt,  Paul,  5,  22/.,  27/.,  29/., 

34  ff;    44,    49  #•>    and    Comm. 

passim. 
Heiligstedt,    A.,     22,     and    Comm. 

passim. 
Hengstenberg,  E.  W.,  22,  and  Comm. 

passim. 
Heraclitus,  34,  loi. 
Herder,  J.  G.,  23. 
Hermas,  7. 

Herod  the  Great,  3,  178. 
Herodotus,  43,  127, 
Hillel,  5,  6. 
Hilprecht,  H.  V.,  42. 
Hitzig,  F.,   22,  61  ff.,  and  Comm. 

passim. 
Hommel,  F.,  68. 
Horace,  81,  112,  127,  163,  184. 
Hunt,  A.  S.,  27,  172. 

Ibn  Ezra,  27,  and  Comm.  passim. 

Jahn,  H.,  21. 

Jerome,  15,  and  Comm.  passim. 

Jesus,  son  of  Sirach,  see  Ben  Sira. 

Jewett,  J.  R.,  98,  181. 

Johanan  ben  Joshua,  5. 

John  Hyrcanus,  151. 

Jose,  Rabbi,  5. 

Joseph,  son  of  Tobias,  63. 

Judah,  Rabbi,  5. 

Judas  Maccabaeus,  151 

Justin,  120,  174. 

Justin  Martyr,  7,  40. 

Juvenal,  174. 

Kautzsch,  E.,  60. 
Kennicott,  Benjamin,  8. 
King,  L.  W.,  135. 


Kittel,  R.,  8,  50. 

Kleinert,  P.,  23/.,  32/. 

Knobel,    August,    22,    and    Comm. 

passim. 
Kuenen,  A.,  22,  59. 

Leclerc,  v.,  42. 
Levy,  Alfred,  15. 
Lidzbarski,  Mark.,  7. 
Louis  XIV,  85. 
Lowth,  Bishop,  15,  50. 
Lucretius,  108. 
Luther,  Martin,  21. 

McFadyen,  J.  E.,  22. 

McNeile,  A.  H.,  2  ff.,  4,  6,  17,  18, 

22/.,  30/.,  32/.,  41/.,  53/.,  59, 

65,  and  Comm.  passim. 
Marcus  Aurelius,  36,  99,  loi. 
Margouliouth,  D.  S.,  22,  53,  59,  67. 
Marshall,  J.  T.,  22. 
Martin,  T.  H.,  42. 
Mazarin,  Jules,  82. 
Meissner,  Bruno,  39. 
Mendelssohn,  Moses,  181. 
Middledorpf,  H.,  14. 
Montfaufon,  B.,  11,  13. 
Moore,  G.  F.,  194. 
Miiller,  W.  M.,  43. 

Nachtigal,  J.  C.  C,  186. 
Nathan,  Rabbi,  115. 
Nathan  ben  Jehiel,  16. 
Noldeke,  T.,  2,  53,  59. 
Noyes,  G.  R.,  22. 

Origen,  7,  13. 
Ovid,  103,  144. 

Paul,  Saint,  3,  40. 

Peake,  A.  S.,  22,  59. 

Pericles,  197, 

Pfleiderer,  Otto,  24,  2)Zi  34?  lOi- 

Philo  Judseus,  5,  40. 

Plato,  42. 

Plumtre,  E.  H.,  4,  22/.,  24,  32/., 

34#. 
Polybius,  122. 

Ptolemy  IV  (Philopator),  61,  120. 
Ptolemy  V  (Epiphanes),  61,  120^., 

122,  174. 
Ptolemy  IX  (Euergetes  II),  60. 
Pyrrho,  43. 

Rashbam     (Rabbi     Samuel     ben 
Meir),  20. 


INDEX 


211 


Rashi  (Rabbi  Solomon  ben  Isaac), 

20. 
Reinsch,  Leo,  68. 
Renan,    E.,    22,    34,    and    Comm. 

passim. 
Ryle,  H.  E.,  2,  6. 

Sabatier,  Peter,  14. 

Samuel  of  Vitry,  i. 

Sanday,  Wm.,  60. 

Sayce,  A.  H.,  7. 

Schechter,  S.,  53. 

Schiirer,  E.,  11,  12,  13. 

Schwally,  F.,  104,  no,  130,  193. 

Scrivener,  F.  H.  A.,  10. 

Sellin,  E.,  34. 

Shammai,  5,  6. 

Siegfried,  C,  22#,  24,  28/.,  32/. 

34  ff-,  44#.,  and  Comm.  passim. 
Simeon,  Rabbi,  5. 
Simeon  ben  Onias,  60. 
Simeon  ben  Shetach,  3. 
Smith,  V.  A.,  27. 
Smith,  W.,  12. 
Smith,  W.  R.,  I,  6. 
Solomon,    19,    21,    46,    47,    58,    and 

Comm.  passim. 
Sophocles,  114,  129,  137. 
Spohn,  G.  L.,  21,  186. 
Strack,  H.,  22,  68. 
Swete,  H.  B.,  10,  11. 
Symmachus,  12,  and  Comm.  passim. 

Tabnith,  32. 

Tannery,  Paul,  42. 

Taylor,  C,  11,  53. 

Tertullian,  7. 

Themistocles,  164. 

Theodotian,  11,  and  Comm.  passim. 

Theognis,  114. 

Tobia  ben  Eleazar,  20,  67,  186. 


Toy,  C.  H.,  60. 

Tyler,    Thomas,    22  ^.,    24,    32  ff.y 
ZAff-i  59}  and  Comm.  passim. 

Umbreit,  F.  W.  C,  73,  186. 

Vaihinger,  J.  C,   22,  and  Comm. 

passim. 
Van  der  Palm,  J.  G.,  25,  and  Comm. 

passim. 
Vincent,  A.  J.,  42. 
Vlock,  W.,  22,  and  Comm.  passim. 

Wage,  Henry,  12. 

Wallace,  J.,  42. 

Wangemann,   Dr.,   22,   and  Comm. 

passim. 
Weber,  F.,  no. 
Wetzstein,  J.  G.,  186. 
Wildeboer,  D.  G.,  6,   22  /.,  32  /., 

and  Comm.  passim. 
Winckler,   Hugo,    22,   61,    119,   and 

Comm.  passim. 
Wright,  C.  H.  H.,  3,  22/.,  32/.,  59, 

and  Comm.  passim. 
Wright,  Wm.,  68. 

Xenophon,  127. 
Xenophanes  of  Colophon,  43. 

Yeard,  F.,  23. 

Zapletal,  v.,  29,  Agff.,  and  Comm. 

passim. 
Zeller,  E.,  35/.,  43#. 
Zeno,  the  Stoic,  41. 
Zirkel,  G.,  22^.,  32^.,  and  Comm. 

passim. 
Zockler,    Otto,   22  ff.,  and    Comm. 

passim. 


III.     INDEX  OF  SUBJECTS. 


Abortion,  advantages  of  an, 

130. 
Abstract  nouns,  53. 
Additions,  Editor's,  46,  197. 
Advice,  Qoheleth's,  i79#. 
Arabic  Version,  15. 
Aramaic  words  in  Qoh.,  52. 


126, 


Babylonian   Influence   on    Qo- 

HELETH,  40^. 

on  Epicurus,  41  jf. 

Books,  when  they  supplanted  rolls, 

27. 
Buddhism,    supposed   influence    on 

Qoh.,  27,  42. 


212 


INDEX 


Canonicity  of  Ec,  2ff. 
Chasid  glossator,  45  ff. 
Confusion  of  verb  «"•?  and  n-'S,  53. 

of  N"^  and  r>iy  53- 

Coptic  Version,  13, 
Coran  {QuWan),  80,  197. 

Date  of  Ec,  58/. 
Despotic  government,  124^.,  148^. 
Dislocations,  theories  of,  25  jf. 
Documentary  theory  of  Ec,  28^. 

EccLESiASTES,  the  name,  i,  67^. 
Ecclesiasticus  and  Ec,  S2>ff- 
End,  humanity's,  158^. 
Epicurean  influence  on  Ec,  38^. 
Experiments  of  Qoh.  in  character  of 

Solomon,  'j6  ff. 
Extremes,  uselessness  of,  143  ff. 

Fate,  35,  109,  112,  136. 

GiLGAMESH  Epic  and  Ec,  39,  129, 

and  162. 
Greek  influence  on  Qoh.,  23^. 

linguistic,  32^. 

philosophical,  34  jf. 

idiom  in  Qoh.,  53. 

Hagiography,  I,  198. 
Helplessness  of  man,  97^. 
Hendiadys,  95, 
Hokma  editor,  44^.,  197^. 

Inhumanity,  Man's,  113^. 
Integrity  of  Ec,  43^. 
Interpretation,  history  of,  id,ff. 
Ishiar's  Descent,  163. 

Kingship,    Advantages    of,    126, 

127. 
Knowledge,  Qoh.'s  efforts  for,  iSSff- 

Latin,  Old,  Version,  14  ff. 

Latin  Vulgate,  15. 

Linguistic  character  of  Qoh.,  52. 

Manuscripts,  Hebrew,  yff. 

of  Septuagint,  io_^. 

Megilloth,  iff. 

Metrical  theories  of  Ec,  29,  49^. 

Midrashim,  19. 

Midrash  Yalkut,  85. 

Mishna,  Eccl.  in,  ^ff. 

New  Testament,  4. 


Old  Age  like  a  Storm,  iS6ff. 
Oppression,  124  ff. 

Parks,  80^. 

Participial  constructions,  53. 

Persian  words  in  Qoh.,  52. 

Personal  pronouns  in  Ec,  53. 

Peshitta  Version,  13^. 

Pharisees,  6. 

Philosophy,  Greek,  34^. 

of  life,  Qoheleth's,  161^. 

Platonic  number,  Bab.  origin  of, 
41/. 

Polyglots,  15. 

Popularity,  transitory,  119^. 

Praise  of  Qoheleth,  Editor's,  197. 

Private  life  of  Qoh.,  64. 

Proof  of  man's  equality  with  ani- 
mals, lO']  ff. 

Proverbs,  variety  of,  37  ff.,  138  ff., 
1^9  ff- 

Religion,  Sincerity  in,  122/", 

Riches,  124/. 

Righteousness,  same  as  godlessness, 

152/. 
Rulers,  advice  concerning,  169^. 

Sadducees,  6,  65. 
Septuagint,  d>ff. 

MSS.  of,  10. 

Shams  in  religion,  122^. 

Sheol,  161,  163. 

Stoic  influence  in  Ec,  34  j^. 

Syncope,  53. 

Syntax,  late  developments,  53. 

Syriac  Versions,  T2>ff- 

Syro-Hexaplar  Version,  14. 

Talmud,  16^. 
Targum,  15/.,  19. 
Text  of  Ec,  7/. 

recensions  of,  17. 

Thought,  outline  of  Qoh.'s,  46^. 
Title  of  Ec,  67/. 

Verbal  Adjectives,  53. 
Versions,  2)ff. 
Vows,  122^. 
Vulgate,  Latin,  15. 

Waw  Consecutive,  53,  87,  116, 118 
Wisdom,  relation  to  Ec,  SI  ff- 
Women,  Qoh.'s  judgment  of,  146. 


The  International  Critical  Commentary 


VOLUMES   NOW   READY. 


Deuteronomy 


By  the  Rev.  S.  R.  DRIVER,  D.D.,  D.Litt. 

Regius  Professor  of  Hebrew  and  Canon  of  Christ  Church,  Oxford 


Crown  8vo.     Net,  $3.00 


"It  is  a  pleasure  to  see  at  last  a  really  critical  Old  Testament  commentary 
in  English  upon  a  portion  of  the  Pentateuch,  and  especially  one  of  such 
merit.  This  I  find  superior  to  any  other  Commentary  in  any  language  upon 
Deuteronomy." — Professor  E.  L.  Curtis,  of  Yale  University. 

"This  volume  of  Professor  Driver's  is  marked  by  his  well-known  care  and 
accuracy,  and  it  will  be  a  great  boon  to  every  one  who  wishes  to  acquire  a 
thorough  knowledge,  either  of  the  Hebrew  language,  or  of  the  contents  of 
the  Book  of  Deuteronomy,  and  their  significance  for  the  development  of  Old 
Testament  thought.  The  author  finds  scope  for  displaying  his  w^ell-known 
wide  and  accurate  knowledge,  and  delicate  appreciation  of -the  genius  of  the 
Hebrew  language,  and  his  readers  are  supplied  with  many  carefully  con- 
structed lists  of  words  and  expressions.  He  is  at  his  best  in  the  detailed 
examination  of  the  text." — London  Athenceum. 


Numbers 

By  the  Rev.  Q.  BUCHANAN  GRAY,  D.D. 

Professor  of  Hebrew,  Mansfield  College,  Oxford 


Crown  8vo.     Net,  $3.00 


"Most  Bible  readers  have  the  impression  that  'Numbers'  is  a  dull  book 
only  relieved  by  the  brilliancy  of  the  Balaam  chapters  and  some  snatches 
of  old  Hebrew  songs,  but,  as  Prof.  Gray  shows  with  admirable  skill  and 
insight,  its  historical  and  religious  value  is  not  that  which  lies  on  the  surface. 
Prof.  Gray's  Commentary  is  distinguished  by  fine  scholarship  and  sanity 
of  judgment;  it  is  impossible  to  commend  it  too  warmly." — Saturday  Review 
{London). 


The   International  Critical  Commentary 

Judges 

By  Dr.  GEORGE  FOOT  MOORE,  D.D. 

Professor  of  Theology,  Harvard  University 


Crown  8vo.     Net,  $3.00 


"  Professor  Moore  has  more  than  sustained  his  scholarly  reputation  in  this 
work,  which  gives  us  for  the  first  time  in  English  a  commentary  on  Judges 
not  excelled,  if  indeed  equalled,  in  any  language  of  the  world." — Professor 
L.  W.  Batten,  0}  P.  E.  Divinity  School,  Philadelphia. 

"Although  a  critical  commentary,  this  work  has  its  practical  uses,  and  by 
its  divisions,  headlines,  etc.,  it  is  admirably  adapted  to  the  wants  of  all 
thoughtful  students  of  the  Scriptures.  Indeed,  with  the  other  books  of  the 
series,  it  is  sure  to  find  its  way  into  the  hands  of  pastors  and  scholarly  lay- 
men."— Portland  Zion's  Herald. 

"Like  its  predecessors,  this  volume  will  be  warmly  welcomed — whilst  to 
those  whose  means  of  securing  up-to-date  information  on  the  subject  of  which 
it  treats  are  limited,  it  is  simply  invaluable." — Edinburgh  Scotsman. 


The  Books  of  Samuel 

By  Rev.  HENRY  PRESERVED  SMITH,  D.D. 

Professor  of  Old  Testament  Literature  and  History  of  Religion, 
Meadville,  Pa. 


Crown  8vo.    Net,  $3.00 


"Professor  Smith's  Commentary  will  for  some  time  be  the  standard  work 
on  Samuel,  and  we  heartily  congratulate  him  on  scholarly  work  so  faith- 
fully accomplished." — The  Athenceum. 

"The  literary  quality  of  the  book  deserves  mention.  We  do  not  usually 
go  to  commentaries  for  models  of  English  style.  But  this  book  has  a  dis- 
tinct, though  unobtrusive,  literary  flavor.  It  is  delightful  reading.  The 
translation  is  always  felicitous,  and  often  renders  further  comment  need- 
less."— The  Evangelist. 

"The  author  exhibits  precisely  that  scholarly  attitude  which  will  com- 
mend his  work  to  the  widest  audience." — The  Churchman. 

"The  commentary  is  the  most  complete  and  minute  hitherto  published 
by  an  English-speaking  scholar." — Literature. 


The   International  Critical  Commentary 


The  Book  of  Psalms 

By  CHARLES  AUGUSTUS  BRIQGS,  D.D.,  D.Litt. 

Graduate  Professor  of  Theological  Encyclopedia  and  Symbolics,  Union 

Theological  Seminary,  New  York 

and 

EMILIE  GRACE  BRIGQS,  B.D. 

2  volumes.     Crown  8vo.     Price,  $3.00  net  each 


"  Christian  scholarship  seems  here  to  have  reached  the  hightest  level  yet 
attained  in  study  of  the  book  which  in  religious  importance  stands  next  to 
the  Gospels.  His  work  upon  it  is  not  likely  to  be  excelled  in  learning,  both 
massive  and  minute,  by  any  volume  of  the  International  Series,  to  which  it 
belongs." — The  Outlook. 

"We  have  in  this  work  what  we  should  expect,  extreme  thoroughness, 
scholarly  precision  and  depth  of  insight." — The  Churchman. 

"  It  is  scarcely  too  much  to  say  that  we  have  here  in  compact  form  the 
best  available  commentary  upon  the  first  book  of  the  Psalter.  It  is  not 
simply  grammatical  and  lexical,  but  it  embodies  the  best  results  of  the 
author's  study  of  Biblical  theology.  These  serve  to  bring  out  doubly  the 
significance  and  import  of  these  hymns  of  worship  of  ancient  Israel." — The 
Westminster. _^_____ 

Proverbs 

By  the  Rev.  CRAWFORD  H.  TOY,  D.D.,  LL.D. 

Professor  of  Hebrew  in  Harv^ard  University 


Crown  8vo.    Net,  $3.00 


"Professor  Toy's  commentary  on  Proverbs  maintains  the  highest  standard 
of  the  International  Critical  Commentaries.  We  can  give  no  higher  praise. 
Proverbs  presents  comparatively  few  problems  in  criticism,  but  offers  large 
opportunities  to  the  expositor  and  exegete.  Professor  Toy's  work  is 
thorough  and  complete."— T/ze  Congregationalist. 

"A  first-class,  up-to-date,  critical  and  exegetical  commentary  on  the  Book 
of  Proverbs  in  the  English  language  was  one  of  the  crying  needs  of  Biblical 
scholarship.  Accordingly,  we  may  not  be  yielding  to  the  latest  addition  to 
the  International  Critical  Series  the  tribute  it  deserves,  when  we  say  that  it 
at  once  takes  the  first  place  in  its  class.  That  place  it  undoubtedly  deserves, 
however,  and  w^ould  have  secured  even  against  much  more  formidable  com- 
petitors than  it  happens  to  have.  It  is  altogether  a  well-arranged,  lucid 
exposition  of  this  unique  book  in  the  Bible,  based  on  a  careful  study  of  the 
text  and  the  Unguistic  and  historical  background  of  every  part  of  it." — The 
Interior. 


The  International  Critical  Commentary 


Amos  and  Hosea 

By  WILLIAM   RAINEY  HARPER,  Ph.D.,  LL.D. 

Late  Professor  of  Semitic  Languages  and  Literatures  and  President  of  the 
University  of  Chicago 


Crown  8vo.    Net,  $3.00 


"I  shall  have  pleasure  in  recommending  it  to  all  students  in  our  Seminary. 
This  book  fills,  in  the  most  favorable  manner,  a  long-felt  want  for  a  good 
critical  commentary  on  two  of  the  most  interesting  books  in  the  Old  Testa- 
ment."—Rev.  Lewis  B.  Paton,  Ph.D.,  Professor  of  Hebrew,  Hartford 
Theological  Seminary. 

"He  has  gone,  with  characteristic  minuteness,  not  only  into  the  analysis 
and  discussion  of  each  point,  endeavoring  in  every  case  to  be  thoroughly 
exhaustive,  but  also  into  the  history  of  exegesis  and  discussion.  Nothing  at 
all  worthy  of  consideration  has  been  passed  by.  The  consequence  is  that 
when  one  carefully  studies  what  has  been  brought  together  in  this  volume, 
either  upon  some  passage  of  the  two  prophets  treated,  or  upon  some  question 
of  critical  or  antiquarian  importance  in  the  introductory  portion  of  the 
volume,  one  feels  that  he  has  obtained  an  adequately  exhaustive  view  of  the 
subject." — The  Interior. 


St.  Matthew 

By  the  Rev.  WILLOUQHBY  C.  ALLEN,  M.A. 

Fellow  of  Exeter  College,  Oxford 


Crown  8vo.    Net,  $3.00 


"As  a  microscopic  and  practically  exhaustive  study  and  itemized  state- 
ment of  the  probable  or  possible  sources  of  the  Synoptic  Gospels  and  of 
their  relations,  one  to  another,  this  work  has  not  been  surpassed.  I  doubt 
if  it  has  been  equaled.  And  the  author  is  not  by  any  means  lacking  in 
spiritual  insight." — The  Methodist  Review  (Nashville). 

"This  important  work  exhibits  the  well-known  critical  qualities  of  the 
International  series,  and  should  claim  a  leading  place  among  commentaries 
on  the  First  Gospel.  The  gospel  is  shown  to  owe  its  name  to  the  discourse 
source,  which  together  with  Mark,  entered  into  its  composition  probably 
between  65  and  75  A.D." — Biblical  World. 

"A  work  of  scholarship  and  patience  that  does  honor  to  the  Christian 
church." — Westminter. 


The   International  Critical  Commentary 


5t.  Mark 

By  the  Rev.  E.  P.  GOULD,  D.D. 

Late    Professor    of    New    Testament    Exegesis,    P.    E.    Divinity    School. 

Philadelphia 


Crown  8vo.    Net,  $2.50 


"The  whole  make-up  is  that  of  a  thoroughly  helpful,  instructive  critical 
study  of  the  Word,  surpassing  anything  of  the  kind  ever  attempted  in  the 
EngHsh  language,  and  to  students  and  clergyman  knowing  the  proper  use  of 
a  commentary  it  will  prove  an  invaluable  aid." — The  Lutheran  Quarterly. 

"Professor  Gould  has  done  his  work  well  and  thoroughly.  ,  .  .  The 
commentary  is  an  adm.irable  example  of  the  critical  method  at  its  best.  .  .  . 
The  Word  study  .  .  .  shows  not  only  familiarity  with  all  the  literature  of 
the  subject,  but  patient,  faithful,  and  independent  investigation.  ...  It 
will  rank  among  the  best,  as  it  is  the  latest  commentary  on  this  basal  Gospel." 
— The  Christian  Intelligencer. 

"Dr.  Gould's  commentary  on  Mark  is  a  large  success,  .  .  .  and  a  credit 
to  American  scholarship.  .  .  .  He  has  undoubtedly  given  us  a  commentary 
on  Mark  which  surpasses  all  others,  a  thing  we  have  reason  to  expect  will 
be  true  in  the  case  of  every  volume  of  the  series  to  which  it  belongs." — The 
Biblical  World. 


St.  Luke 


By  the  Rev.  ALFRED  PLUMMER,  D.D. 

Sometime  Master  of    University  College,  Durham;  formerly  Fellow 
and  Senior  Tutor  of  Trinity  College,  Oxford 


Crown  8vo.    Net,  $3.00 


"It  is  distinguished  throughout  by  learning,  sobriety  of  judgment,  and 
sound  exegesis.  It  is  a  weighty  contribution  to  the  interpretation  of  the 
Third  Gospel,  and  will  take  an  honorable  place  in  the  series  of  which  it 
forms  a  part." — Prof.  D.D.  S  almond,  in  the  Critical  Review. 

"We  are  pleased  with  the  thoroughness  and  scientific  accuracy  of  the  in- 
terpretations. ...  It  seems  to  us  that  the  prevailing  characteristic  of  the 
book  is  common  sense,  fortified  by  learning  and  piety." — The  Herald  and 
Presbyter. 

"It  is  a  valuable  and  welcome  addition  to  our  somewhat  scanty  stock  of 
first-class  commentaries  on  the  Third  Gospel.  By  its  scholarly  thorough- 
ness it  well  sustains  the  reputation  which  the  Inteenational  Series  has 
already  won,"^ — Prof,  J.  H.  Thayer,  0}  Harvard  University. 


The   International  Critical  Commentary 

Romans 

By  the  Rev.  WILLIAM  SANDAY,  D.D.,  LL.D. 

Lady  Margaret  Professor  of  Divinity  and  Canon  of  Christ  Church,  Oxford 

and  the 
Rev.  A.  C.  HEADLAM,  M.A.,  D.D. 

Principal  of  King's  College,  London 


Crown  8vo.    Net,  $3.00 

"We  do  not  hesitate  to  commend  this  as  the  best  commentary  on  Romans 
yet  written  in  English.  It  will  do  much  to  popularize  this  admirable  and 
much  needed  series,  by  showing  that  it  is  possible  to  be  critical  and  scholarly 
and  at  the  same  time  devout  and  spiritual,  and  intelligible  to  plain  Bible 
readers." — The  Church  Standard. 

"A  commentary  with  a  very  distinct  character  and  purpose  of  its  own, 
which  brings  to  students  and  ministers  an  aid  which  they  cannot  obtain  else- 
where. .  .  .  There  is  probably  no  other  commentary  in  which  criticism  has 
been  employed  so  successfully  and  impartially  to  bring  out  the  author's 
thought." — N.  Y.  Independent. 

"We  have  nothing  but  heartiest  praise  for  the  weightier  matters  of  the 
commentary.  It  is  not  only  critical,  but  exegetical,  expository,  doctrinal, 
practical,  and  eminently  spiritual.  The  positive  conclusions  of  the  books 
are  very  numerous  and  are  stoutly,  gloriously  evangelical.  .  .  .  The  com- 
mentary does  not  fail  to  speak  with  the  utmost  reverence  of  the  whole  word 
of  God." — The  Congregationalist. 


Ephesians  and  Colossians 

By  the  Rev.  T.  K.  ABBOTT,  B.D.,  D.Litt. 

Formerly  Professor  of  Biblical   Greek,   now  of  Hebrew,  Trinity  College, 

Dublin 


Crown  8vo.    Net,  $2.50 

"The  exegesis  based  so  solidly  on  thj  rock  foundation  of  philology  is 
argumentatively  and  convincingly  strong.  A  spiritual  and  evangelical  tenor 
pervades  the  interpretation  from  first  to  last.  .  .  .  These  elements,  to- 
gether with  the  author's  full-orbed  vision  of  the  truth,  with  his  discrimina- 
tive judgment  and  his  felicity  of  expression,  make  this  the  peer  of  any  com- 
mentary on  these  important  letters." — The  Standard. 

"An  exceedingly  careful  and  painstaking  piece  of  work.  The  introduc- 
tory discussions  of  questions  bearing  on  the  authenticity  and  integrity  (of 
the  epistles)  are  clear  and  candid,  and  the  exposition  of  the  text  displays  a 
fine  scholarship  and  insight." — Northwestern  Christian  Advocate. 


The  International  Critical  Commentary 


Philippians  and  Philemon 

By  the  Rev.  MARVIN  R.  VINCENT,  D.D. 

Professor  of  Biblical  Literature  in  Union  Theological  Seminary,  New  York 


Crown  8vo.    Net,  $2.00 


"Of  the  merits  of  the  work  it  is  enough  to  say  that  it  is  worthy  of  its 
place  in  the  noble  undertaking  to  which  it  belongs.  It  is  full  of  just  such 
information  as  the  Bible  student,  lay  or  clerical,  needs;  and  while  giving  an 
abundance  of  the  truths  of  erudition  to  aid  the  critical  student  of  the  text,  it 
abounds  also  in  that  more  popular  information  which  enables  the  attentive 
reader  almost  to  put  himself  in  St.  Paul's  place,  to  see  with  the  eyes  and  feel 
\\dth  the  heart  of  the  Apostle  to  the  Gentiles." — Boston  Advertiser. 

"Throughout  the  work  scholarly  research  is  evident.  It  commends  itself 
by  its  clear  elucidation,  its  keen  exegesis  which  marks  the  word  study  on 
every  page,  its  compactness  of  statement  and  its  simplicity  of  arrangement." 
— Lutheran  World. 


St.  Peter  and  5t.  Jude 

By  the  Rev.  CHARLES  BIQQ,  D.D. 

Regius  Professor  of  Ecclesiastical  History  in  the  University  of  Oxford 


Crown  8vo.    Net,  $2.50 


"His  commentary  is  very  satisfactory  indeed.  His  notes  are  particularly 
valuable.  We  know  of  no  work  on  these  Epistles  which  is  so  full  and  satis- 
factory."— The  Living  Church. 

"Canon  Bigg's  work  is  pre-eminently  characterized  by  judicial  opcn- 
mindedness  and  sympathetic  insight  into  historical  conditions.  His  reaUstic 
interpretation  of  the  relations  of  the  apostles  and  the  circumstances  of  the 
early  church  renders  the  volume  invaluable  to  students  of  these  themes. 
The  exegetical  work  in  the  volume  rests  on  the  broad  basis  of  careful  Kn- 
guistic  study,  acquaintance  with  apocalyptic  literature  and  the  writings  of 
the  Fathers,  a  sane  judgment,  and  good  sense." — American  Jcurnal  of 
Theology. 


The  International 

Theological  Library 


EDITORS'  PREFACE 

THEOLOGY  has  made  great  and  rapid  advances 
in  recent  years.  New  lines  of  investigation  have 
been  opened  up,  fresh  light  has  been  cast  upon 
many  subjects  of  the  deepest  interest,  and  the  historical 
method  has  been  applied  with  important  results.  This 
has  prepared  the  way  for  a  Library  of  Theological 
Science,  and  has  created  the  demand  for  it.  It  has  also 
made  it  at  once  opportune  and  practicable  now  to  se- 
cure the  services  of  specialists  in  the  different  depart- 
ments of  Theology,  and  to  associate  them  in  an  enter- 
prise which  will  furnish  a  record  of  Theological 
inquiry  up  to  date. 

This  Library  is  designed  to  cover  the  whole  field  of 
Christian  Theology.  Each  volume  is  to  be  complete 
in  itself,  while,  at  the  same  time,  it  will  form  part  of  a 
carefully  planned  whole.  One  of  the  Editors  is  to  pre- 
pare a  volume  of  Theological  Encyclopaedia  which  will 
give  the  history  and  literature  of  each  department,  as 
well  as  of  Theology  as  a  whole. 


The  International  Theological  Library 

The  Library  is  intended  to  form  a  series  of  Text- 
Books  for  Students  of  Theology. 

The  Authors,  therefore,  aim  at  conciseness  and  com- 
pactness of  statement.  At  the  same  time,  they  have  in 
view  that  large  and  increasing  class  of  students,  in  other 
departments  of  inquiry,  who  desire  to  have  a  systematic 
and  thorough  exposition  of  Theological  Science.  Tech- 
nical matters  will  therefore  be  thrown  into  the  form  of 
notes,  and  the  text  will  be  made  as  readable  and  attract- 
ive as  possible. 

The  Library  is  international  and  interconfessional.  It 
will  be  conducted  in  a  catholic  spirit,  and  in  the 
interests  of  Theology  as  a  science. 

Its  aim  will  be  to  give  full  and  impartial  statements 
both  of  the  results  of  Theological  Science  and  of  the 
questions  which  are  still  at  issue  in  the  different 
departments. 

The  Authors  will  be  scholars  of  recognized  reputation 
in  the  several  branches  of  study  assigned  to  them.  They 
Avill  be  associated  with  each  other  and  with  the  Editors 
in  the  effort  to  provide  a  series  of  volumes  which  may 
adequately  represent  the  present  condition  of  investi- 
gation, and  indicate  the  w^ay  for  further  progress. 

Charles  A.  Briggs 
Stewart  D.  F.  S almond 


The  International  Theological  Library 


ARRANGEMENT  OF  VOLUMES  AND  AUTHORS 

THEOLOGICAL  ENCYCLOPAEDIA.  By  CHARLES  A.  Briggs,  D.D., 
D.Litt.,  Professor  of  Theological  Encyclopaedia  and  Symbolics,  Union 
Theological  Seminary,  New  York. 

AN  INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  LITERATURE  OF  THE  OLD  TESTA- 
MENT. By  S.  R.  Driver,  D.D.,  D.Litt.,  Regius  Professor  of  Hebrew 
and  Canon  of  Christ  Church,  Oxford.  \_Rt'vised  and  Enlarged  Edition, 

CANON  AND  TEXT  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT.  By  FRANCIS 
Crawford  Burkitt,  M.A.,  Norrisian  Professor  of  Divinity,  University 
of  Cambridge. 

OLD  TESTAMENT  HISTORY.  By  Henry  Preserved  Smith,  D.D., 
sometime  Professor  of  Biblical  History,  Amherst  College,  Mass. 

\No'w  Ready. 

CONTEMPORARY     HISTORY     OF    THE     OLD     TESTAMENT.      By 

Francis  Brown,  D.D.,  LL.D.,  D.Litt.,.  Professor  of  Hebrew,  Union 
Theological  Seminary,  New  York. 

THEOLOGY  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT.  By  A.  B.  DAVIDSON, 
D.D.,  LL.D.,  sometime  Professor  of  Hebrew,  New  College,  Edinburgh. 

\_Now  Ready. 

AN  INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  LITERATURE  OF  THE  NEW  TESTA- 
MENT. By  Rev.  James  Moffatt,  B.D.,  Minister  United  Free  Church, 
Dundonald,  Scotland. 

CANON  AND  TEXT  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.  By  Caspar  Rene 
Gregory,  D.D.,  LL.D.,  Professor  of  New  Testament  Exegesis  in  the 
University  of  Leipzig.  \_AToiv  Ready. 

THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST.  By  William  Sanday,  D.D.,  LL.D.,  Lady 
Margaret  Professor  of  Divinity  and  Canon  of  Christ  Church,  Oxford. 

A    HISTORY    OF  CHRISTIANITY    IN    THE    APOSTOLIC    AGE.      By 

Arthur  C.  McGiffert,  D.D.,  Professor  of  Church  History,  Union  Theo- 
logical   Seminary,  New  York.  \_Now  Ready. 

CONTEMPORARY     HISTORY     OF    THE     NEW    TESTAMENT.      By 

Frank  C.  Porter,  D.D.,  Professor  of  Biblical  Theology,  Yale  University, 
New  Plaven,    Conn. 

THEOLOGY  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.  By  George  B.  Stevens, 
D.D.,  sometime  Professor  of  Systematic  Theology,  Yale  University,  New 
Haven,  Conn.  \A'ow  Ready. 

BIBLICAL  ARCH>COLOGY.  By  G.  BUCHANAN  Gray,  D.D.,  Professor 
of  Hebrew,  Mansfield  College,  Oxford. 

THE  ANCIENT    CATHOLIC    CHURCH.      By    ROBERT    Rainy,   D.D., 

LL.D.,  sometime  Principal  of  New  College,  Edinburgh.  \Now  Ready. 

THE  EARLY  LATIN  CHURCH.  By  Charles  BiGG,  D.D.,  Regius  Pro- 
fessor of  Church  History,  University  of  Oxford. 


The  International  Theological  Library 


THE  LATER  LATIN  CHURCH.  By  E.  W.  Watson,  M.A.,  Professor 
of  Church  History,  King's  College,  London. 

THE  GREEK  AND  ORI  ENTAL  CH  U  RCH  ES.  By  W.  F.  Adeney,D.D., 

Principal  of  Independent  College,  Manchester. 

THE  REFORMATION.  By  T.  M.  LiNDSAY,  D.D.,  Principal  of  the  United 
Free  College,  Glasgow.  [2  vols.     N'ozv  Ready. 

CHRISTIANITY  IN  LATIN  COUNTRIES  SINCE  THE  COUNCIL  OF 
TRENT.    By  Paul  Sabatier,  D.  Litt. 

SYMBOLICS.  By  Charles  A.  Briggs,  D.D.,  D.Litt.,  Professor  of 
Theological  Encyclopaedia  and  Symbolics,  Union  Theological  Seminary, 
New  York. 

HISTORY  OF  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE.  By  G.  P.  FiSHER,  D.D., 
LL. D.,  Professor  of  Ecclesiastical  History,  Yale  University,  New  Haven, 
Conn.  \_Revised  and  Enlarged  Edition. 

CHRISTIAN  INSTITUTIONS.  By  A.  V.  G.  Allen,  D.D.,  Professor  of 
Ecclesiastical  History,  Protestant  Episcopal  Divinity  School,  Cambridge, 
Mass.  \Nozv  Ready. 

PHILOSOPHY  OF  RELIGION.  By  Robert  FLINT,  D.D.,  LL.D.,  some- 
time Professor  of  Divinity  in  the  University  of  Edinburgh. 

THE  HISTORY  OF  RELIGIONS.  By  George  F.  Moore,  D.D.,  LL.D., 
Professor  in  Harvard  University. 

APOLOGETICS.  By  A,  B.  Bruce,  D.D.,  sometime  Professor  of  New 
Testament  Exegesis,  Free  Church  College,  Glasgow. 

\Revised  and  Enlarged  Edition, 

THE  DOCTRINE  OFGOD.  By  WiLLL\M  N.  Clarke,  D.D.,  Professor 
of  Systematic  Theology,  Hamilton  Theological  Seminary. 

THE  DOCTRINE  OF  MAN.  By  WiLLL\M  P.  Paterson,  D.D.,  Professor 
of  Divinity,  University  of  Edinburgh. 

THE  DOCTRINE  OF  CHRIST.  By  H.  R.  MACKINTOSH,  Ph.D.,  Professor 
of  Systematic  Theology,  New  College,  Edinburgh. 

THE  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE  OF  SALVATION.  By  George  B.  Ste- 
vens, D.D.,  sometime  Professor  of  Systematic  Theology,  Yale  University. 

[A^(?7c  Ready. 

THE  DOCTRINE  OF  THE  CHRISTIAN  LIFE.  By  WiLLlAM  Adams 
Brown,  D.D.,  Professor  of  Systematic  Theology,  Union  Theological 
Seminary,  New  York. 

CHRISTIAN  ETHICS.  By  Newman  Smyth,  D.D.,  Pastor  of  Congrega- 
tional Church,  New  Haven.  ^Revised  and  Etilatged  Edition. 

THE    CHRISTIAN    PASTOR    AND   THE    WORKING    CHURCH.      By 

Washington  Gladden,  D.D.,  Pastor  of  Congregational  Church,  Columbus, 
Ohio.  [A'(77t'  Ready. 

THE  CHRISTIAN   PREACHER.  lAut/ior  to  be  announced  later. 

RABBINICAL  LITERATURE.  By  S.  Schechter,  M.A.,  President  of 
the  Jewish  Theological  Seminary,  New  York  City. 


The  International  Theological  Library 


A  History  of  the  Reformation 

I.    THE  REFORMATION  IN  GERMANY 
II.    THE  REFORMATION  IN  LANDS  BEYOND  GERMANY 

By  THOMAS  M.  LINDSAY,  M.A.,  D.D. 

Principal  of  the  United  Free  Church  College,  Glasgow 


Orown  8vo,  544  pages,  2  vols.     Each  $2.50  net 


"This  volume  is  marked  by  high  scholarship  and  considerate  frankness 
in  the  treatment  of  debatable  questions." — The  Universalist  Leader. 

"  The  arrangement  of  the  book  is  most  excellent,  and  while  it  is  a  worthy 
and  scholarly  account  it  is  so  arranged  that  for  the  student  of  the  Reforma- 
tion it  is  almost  encyclopaedic  in  its  convenience  and  conciseness.  It  is  a 
book  no  library,  public  or  private,  can  really  be  without." — Record  of  Chris- 
tian Work. 

"No  previous  history,  we  believe,  has  given  so  full  and  graphic  a  por- 
traiture of  the  intellectual,  social  and  reUgious  life  of  the  age  which  gave 
birth  to  the  Reformation,  or  exhibited  so  clearly  the  intimate  connection 
of  the  evangelical  revival  under  Luther  wuth  the  family  religion  present  and 
taught  in  German  homes  from  medieval  times." — The  Christian  Intelligencer. 

"  The  book,  as  a  whole,  is  one  of  rare  value.  It  is  full  of  pictures  as  vivid 
as  if  they  were  drawn  from  life.  In  a  sense  they  were,  for  Dr.  Lindsay  has 
succeeded  in  thinking  himself  into  the  hfe  and  point  of  view  of  the  era  of 
which  he  writes,  to  a  remarkable  degree.  The  reader  who  completes  this 
intensely  interesting  volume,  will  look  forward  eagerly  to  the  next." — 
Christian  World. 

"The  good  balance  of  material,  which  Principal  Lindsay  has  attained  by 
a  self-denying  exclusion,  as  well  as  by  much  research  and  inclusion  of  fresh 
material,  makes  the  work  a  real  addition  to  our  materials  for  study," — The 
Congregationalist. 

"Every  intelligent  layman  can  enjoy  the  book  thoroughly,  while  its  foot- 
notes and  bibliographies  give  it  interest  and  value  for  the  special  student." — 
New  York  Observer. 


The  International  Theological  Library 


Theology  of  the  New  Testament 

By  GEORGE  B.  STEVENS,  D.D.,  LL.D. 

Professor  of  Systematic  Theology,  Yale  University 


Crown  8vo,  638  pages.    $2.50  net 


■'In  style  it  is  rarely  clear,  simple,  and  strong,  adapted  alike  to  the  gen- 
eral reader  and  the  theological  student.  The  former  class  mil  find  it  read- 
able and  interesting  to  an  unusual  degree,  while  the  student  will  value  its 
thorough  scholarship  and  completeness  of  treatment.  His  work  has  a  sim- 
plicity, beauty,  and  freshness  that  add  greatly  to  its  scholarly  excellence  and 
worth." — Christian  Advocate. 

"It  is  a  fine  example  of  painstaking,  discriminating,  impartial  research 
and  statement." — The  Congregationalist. 

"It  will  certainly  take  its  place,  after  careful  reading,  as  a  valuable 
synopsis,  neither  bare  nor  over-elaborate,  to  which  recourse  mil  be  had  by 
the  student  or  teacher  who  requires  within  moderate  compass  the  gist  of 
modern  research." — The  Literary  World. 


The  Ancient  Catholic  Church 

From  the  Accession  of  Trajan  to  the  Fourth 
General  Council  (A.  D.  98=451) 

By  ROBERT  RAINY,  D.D. 

Principal  of  the  New  College,  Edinburgh 


Crown  8vo,  554  pages.    $2.50  net 


"  This  is  verily  and  indeed  a  book  to  thank  God  for;  and  if  anybody  has 
been  despairing  of  a  restoration  of  true  catholic  unity  in  God's  good  time,  it 
is  a  book  to  fill  him  with  hope  and  confidence." — The  Church  Standard. 

"Principal  Rainy  has  written  a  fascinating  book.  He  has  the  gifts  of  an 
historian  and  an  expositor.  His  fresh  presentation  of  so  intricate  and  time- 
worn  a  subject  as  Gnosticism  grips  and  holds  the  attention  from  first  to  last. 
Familiarity  with  most  of  the  subjects  which  fall  to  be  treated  within  these 
limits  of  Christian  histor\'  had  bred  a  fancy  that  we  might  safely  and  profit- 
ably skip  some  of  the  chapters,  but  we  found  ourselves  returning  to  close  up 
the  gaps;  we  should  advise  those  who  are  led  to  read  the  book  through  this 
notice  not  to  repeat  our  experiment.  It  is  a  dish  of  well-cooked  and  well- 
seasoned  meat,  savory  and  rich,  with  abundance  of  gra\n,';  and,  while  no 
one  wishes  to  be  a  glutton,  he  will  miss  something  nutritious  if  he  does  not 
take  time  to  consume  it  all." — Methodist  Review. 


The  International  Theological  Library 


History  of  Christian  Doctrine 

By  GEORGE  P.  FISHER,  D.D.,  LL.D. 

Titus  Street  Professor  of  Ecclesiastical  History  in  Yale  University 


Crown  8vo,  583  pages.    $2.50  net 


"Intrinsically  this  volume  is  worthy  of  a  foremost  place  in  our  modern 
Hterature.  .  .  .  We  have  no  work  on  the  subject  in  EngHsh  equal  to  it,  for 
variety  and  range,  clearness  of  statement,  judicious  guidance,  and  catholicity 
of  tone." — London  N onconjormist  and  Independent. 

"It  is  only  just  to  say  that  Dr.  Fisher  has  produced  the  best  History  of 
Doctrine  that  we  have  in  English." — The  New  York  Evangelist. 

"It  meets  the  severest  standard;  there  is  fullness  of  knowledge,  thorough 
research,  keenly  analytic  thought,  and  rarest  enrichment  for  a  positive, 
profound  and  learned  critic.  There  is  interpretative  and  reveaHng  sympathy. 
It  is  of  the  class  of  works  that  mark  epochs  in  their  several  departments." — 
The  Outlook. 

Christian  Institutions 

By  ALEXANDER   V.  G.  ALLEN,  D.D. 

Professor  of  Ecclesiastical  History  in  the  Episcopal  Theological  School  in 

Cambridge 


Crown  8vo,  577  pages.    $2.50  net 


"Professor  Allen's  Christian  Institutions  may  be  regarded  as  the  most 
important  permanent  contribution  which  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church 
of  the  United  States  has  yet  made  to  general  theological  thought." — The 
American  Journal  of  Theology. 

"It  is  an  honor  to  American  scholarship,  and  will  be  read  by  all  who 
wish  to  be  abreast  of  the  age." — The  Lutheran  Church  Review. 

"It  is  a  treasury  of  expert  knowledge,  arranged  in  an  orderly  and  lucid 
manner,  and  more  than  ordinarily  readable.  ...  It  is  controlled  by  the 
candid  and  critical  spirit  of  the  careful  historian  who,  of  course,  has  his 
convictions  and  preferences,  but  who  makes  no  claims  in  their  behalf  which 
the  facts  do  not  seem  to  warrant." — The  Congregationalist. 

"He  writes  in  a  charming  style,  and  has  collected  a  vast  amount  of  im- 
portant material  pertaining  to  his  subject  which  can  be  found  in  no  other 
work  in  so  compact  a  form." — The  New  York  Observer. 


The  International  Theological  Library 


Apologetics 

Or,  Christianity  Defensively  Stated 
By  ALEXANDER  BALMAIN  BRUCE,  D.D. 

Professor  of  Apologetics  and  New  Testament  Exegesis,  Free  Church  College, 
Glasgow;  Author  of  "The  Training  of  the  Twelve,"  "The  Humilia- 
tion of  Christ,"  "The  Kingdom  of  God,"  etc. 


Crown  8vo,  528  pages.    $2.50  net 


"The  book  is  well-nigh  indispensable  to  those  who  propose  to  keep 
abreast  of  the  times." — Western  Christian  Advocate. 

"In  a  word,  he  tells  precisely  what  all  intelligent  persons  wish  to  know, 
and  tells  it  in  a  clear,  fresh  and  convincing  manner.  Scarcely  anyone  has 
so  successfully  rendered  the  service  of  showing  what  the  result  of  the  higher 
criticism  is  for  the  proper  understanding  of  the  history  and  religion  of 
Israel." — Andover  Review. 

"We  have  not  for  a  long  time  taken  a  book  in  hand  that  is  more  stimulating 
to  faith.  .  .  .  Without  commenting  further,  we  repeat  that  this  volume  is 
the  ablest,  most  scholarly,  most  advanced,  and  sharpest  defence  of  Chris- 
tianity that  has  ever  been  written.  No  theological  library  should  be  with- 
out it." — Zion's  Herald. 


Christian  Ethics 

By  NEWMAN    SMYTH,  D.D.,  New  Haven 
Crown  8vo,  508  pages.    $2.50  net 


"As  this  book  is  the  latest,  so  it  is  the  fullest  and  most  attractive  treat- 
ment of  the  subject  that  we  are  familiar  with.  Patient  and  exhaustive  in 
its  method  of  inquiry,  and  stimulating  and  suggestive  in  the  topic  it  handles, 
we  are  confident  that  it  will  be  a  help  to  the  task  of  the  moral  understanding 
and  interpretation  of  human  Hfe." — The  Living  Church. 

"This  book  of  Dr.  Newman  Smyth  is  of  extraordinary  interest  and  value. 
It  is  an  honor  to  American  scholarship  and  American  Christian  thinking. 
It  is  a  work  which  has  been  wrought  out  with  remarkable  grasp  of  con- 
ception, and  power  of  just  analysis,  fullness  of  information,  richness  of 
thought,  and  affluence  of  apt  and  luminous  illustration.  Its  style  is  singu- 
larly clear,  simple,  facile,  and  strong.  Too  much  gratification  can  hardly 
be  expressed  at  the  way  the  author  lifts  the  whole  subject  of  ethics  up  out 
of  the  slough  of  mere  naturalism  into  its  own  place,  where  it  is  seen  to  be 
illumined  by  the  Christian  revelation  and  vision." — The  Advance. 


The  International  Theological  Library 


The  Christian  Doctrine  of  Salvation 

By  GEORGE   B.  STEVENS.  Ph.D.,  D.D.,  LL.D. 

D  wight  Professor  of  Systematic  Theology  in  Yale  University 


Crown  8vo,  558  pages.     $2.50  net 


"The  book  is  a  great  work,  whatever  one's  own  dogmatic  opinions  may 
be,  or  however  one  might  wish  to  criticize  some  of  the  positions  taken  by 
Dr.  Stevens.  It  shows  mastery  of  the  subject,  breadth  of  view  combined 
with  the  minutiae  of  scholarship,  that  is  admirable.  It  should  have  a  wide 
reading,  and  it  can  do  much  for  this  transitional  time  of  ours,  when  nothing 
is  more  needed  than  the  reinterpretation  of  the  old  formulas  in  the  Hfe  of 
to-day." — The  Examiner. 

"Professor  Stevens  has  performed  a  task  of  great  importance,  certain 
to  exert  wide  and  helpful  influence  in  settling  the  minds  of  men.  He  has 
treated  the  subject  historically  and  has  given  to  Christ  the  first  place  in 
interpreting  his  own  mission." — Congregationalist  and  Christian  World. 


The  Christian  Pastor  and  the  Working  Church 

By  WASHINGTON   GLADDEN,  D.D.,  LL.D. 

Author   of   "Applied    Christianity,"    "Who   Wrote   the    Bible?"    "Ruhng 
Ideas  of  the  Present  Age,"  etc. 


Crown  8vo,  485  pages.    $2.50  net 


"Packed  with  wisdom  and  instruction  and  a  profound  piety.  ...  It  is 
pithy,  pertinent,  and  judicious  from  cover  to  cover.  ...  An  exceedingly 
comprehensive,  sagacious,  and  suggestive  study  and  application  of  its 
theme." — The  Congregationalist. 

"We  have  here,  for  the  pastor,  the  most  modern  practical  treatise  yet 
published — sagacious,  balanced,  devout,  inspiring." — The  Dial. 

"A  comprehensive,  inspiring,  and  helpful  guide  to  a  busy  pastor.  One 
finds  in  it  a  multitude  of  practical  suggestions  for  the  development  of  the 
spiritual  and  working  life  of  the  Church,  and  the  answer  to  many  problems 
that  are  a  constant  perplexity  to  the  faithful  minister." — The  Christian 
Intelligencer. 


The  International  Theological  Library 


Canon  and  Text  of  the  New  Testament 

By  CASPAR  RENE  GREGORY,  D.D.,  LL.D. 

Professor  of  New  Testament  Exegesis  in  the  University  of  Leipzig. 


Crown  8vo,  539  pages.    $2.50  net 


''The  book  is  a  treasury  of  learning,  and  its  fairness  in  dealing  with  the 
matter  in  hand  is  admirable.  From  first  to  last,  the  purpose  of  the  author 
is  not  to  show  upon  how  slight  basis  our  confidence  in  the  canonicity  of  the 
New  Testament  is  based,  but  rather  upon  how  solid  a  foundation  our  con- 
fidence rests." — Journal  atid  Messenger. 

"He  has  succeeded  in  giving  us  on  a  rather  dull  subject  a  book  bright, 
fresh,  readable  and  entertaining,  and  at  the  same  time  one  heavily  freighted 
with  most  valuable  information.  To  read  the  'Canon  and  Text'  will  be 
to  any  Christian  a  help,  a  stimulus,  a  means  of  grace." 

^  — The  New  York  Observer. 

"This  volume  is  one  of  the  most  interesting  and  important  in  the  series 
known  as  The  International  Theological  Library.  It  is  a  book  with  which 
every  Biblical  scholar  must  become  familiar,  and  which  an  intelligent  lay- 
man will  find  instructive  and  helpful." 

—  The  Congregationalist  and  Christian  World. 

"A  work  like  the  'Canon  and  Text  of  the  New  Testament,'  prepared  by 
one  of  such  ability  and  after  such  research,  we  must  naturally  think  would 
be  of  inestimable  value  to  the  Biblical  student.  The  reading  of  it  will  con- 
firm any  unprejudiced  mind  in  this  opinion.  Had  we  possessed  it  as  a  text- 
book in  our  seminary  days  the  study  of  Introduction  would  have  been  far 
more  interesting  and  far  more  conclusive  in  its  results.  The  style  of  the 
author  is  very  attractive  in  its  simplicity  and  clearness.  There  is  a  familiar- 
ity and  a  conversational  tone  about  his  descriptions  and  illustrations  that 
makes  the  reading  easy  and  pleasant." — The  Westminster. 

"  Dr.  Gregory  has  every  qualification  for  the  laborious  task  that  he  set 
before  himself  in  planning  this  remarkable  work  on  the  evidence  that  under- 
lies the  '  Canon  and  Text  of  the  New  Testament,'  and  it  may  be  said  at  once 
that  his  labour  of  love  has  been  crowned  with  complete  success." 

— Contemporary  Review. 

"  This  substantial  volume  fully  maintains  the  high  standard  of  scholar- 
ship which  has  hitherto  distinguished  this  well-known  series.  ...  A  bril- 
liant contribution  to  New  Testament  scholarship." — Scotsman. 

"It  may  be  said  at  once  that  this  learned  and  copious  work  will  enhance 
a  reputation  already  deservedly  high.  .  .  .  His  book  is  a  treasury  in  which 
are  gathered  all  'allusions  to  the  existence  of  the  New  Testament  books, 
quotations  from  these,  direct  references  to  the  books  by  name,  and  signs  of 
special  value  attached  to  them  by  Christians." — Methodist  Recorder. 


Princeton  Theological  Seminary-Speer 


1    1012  01085  0628 


|^®v^i;p.,-g-j^.,JDate  Due 


